Rev. Mark Driscoll is a pastor of a large church up in Seattle called Mars Hill (Be careful not to confuse him with Rob Bell the pastor of Mars Hill in Grandville, MI. Driscoll is pretty solid theologically. Rob Bell – not so much, although he likes to use words that sound familiar which makes it all very confusing.) Driscoll has gotten a lot of publicity in the last few years because of the growth of Mars Hill and because he is one of the men seen as having helped to popularize Calvinism. Driscoll is a pretty colorful dude at times and has managed to offend plenty of folks, but he also gets a pretty fair amount right. Here is a video of him commenting on some of the popular teenage vampire novels; he makes some good points. As always – feel free to comment.

“Mrs. Bagby was not a Cumberland Presbyterian but a member of the U.S. or Southern Presbyterian Church. I too am now a member of the Southern Church. I say nothing against the Cumberlands. They broke with the Presbyterian Church because they did not believe a preacher needed a lot of formal education. That is all right but they are not sound on Election. They do not fully accept it. I confess it is a hard doctrine, running contrary to our earthly ideas of fair play, but I can see no way around it. Read I Corinthians 6:13 and II Timothy 1:9, 10. Also I Peter 1:2, 19, 20 and Romans 11:7. There you have it. It was good enough for Paul and Silas and it is good enough for me. It is good enough for you too.”

True Grit, Charles Portis

Francis Schaeffer’s book, Escape from Reason, is worth reading. It is worth reading multiple times. Early in my college career, Craig Loibner, the pastor of Fellowship North – the church where I grew up, recommended I start reading Francis Schaeffer. Specifically, he recommended that I read Escape from Reason. I respect Craig, so I read the book.  The first time I read the book, I knew it was important.  The first time I read the book, I knew it was helpful.  The first time I read the book, I had no idea what it was about. For someone given to experience in life over-and-against thoughtfulness about life, this book, which is thoroughly bent on thoughtfulness about life, only shook my foudation.  However, the truths that Schaeffer set forth would, overtime, seep down into the newly formed cracks in my foundation, solidify, and eventually obliterate the fairly pure though profoundly unexamined existentialism on which I built my life. Over the last ten-or-so years, I have revisited this book time-and-time-again. At present I am finishing yet another reading of Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason and was struck again by the closing paragraphs of chapter six.

I have come to the point where, when I hear the word ‘Jesus’ – which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and His work – I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word ‘Jesus’ than almost any other word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from which Jesus taught. Men are called to follow the word with highly motivated fervency, and nowhere more than in the new morality which follows the New Theology. It is now Jesus-like to sleep with a girl or a man, if she or he needs you. As long as you are trying to be human you are being Jesus-like to sleep with the other person, at the cost, be it noted, of breaking the specific morality which Jesus taught. But to these men this does not matter, because that is downstairs in the area of rational scriptural content.

We have come then to this fearsome place where the word ‘Jesus’ has become the enemy of the Person Jesus, and the enemy of what Jesus taught. We must fear this contentless banner of the word ‘Jesus’ not because we do not love Jesus, but because we do love Him. We must fight this contentless banner, with its deep motivations, rooted into the memories of the race, which is being used for the purpose of sociological form and control. We must teach our spiritual children to do the same.

This accelerating trend makes me wonder whether, when Jesus said that towards the end-time there will be other Jesuses, He meant something like this. We must never forget that the great enemy who is coming is the anti-Christ. He is not the anti-non-Christ. He is anti-Christ. Increasingly over the last few years the word ‘Jesus’, separated from the content of the Scriptures, has become the enemy of the Jesus of history, the Jesus who died and rose and who is coming again and who is the eternal Son of God. So let us take care. If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of Scriptures (including the discussable and the verifiable), we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system. This system surrounds us as an almost monolithic consensus.

Many sins are combated by developing an understanding of what it means for people to be created in the image of God.  Most of the various “isms” having to do with individuals – racism, sexism, ageism, elitism, classism, etc. – are combated with a proper biblical understanding of man as bearing God’s image.  James makes this point when he writes of the human tongue, “It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (James 3.8-9, ESV).

Michael Horton, in the seventh chapter, “How Pro-Life Are We Really?,” of his book The Law of Perfect Freedom rightly argues 1) that this image of God principle is the basis for the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” and 2) that murder is what is at play not only when we physically take a life, but also when we slight our neighbor in any number of ways.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives us a divine commentary on the sixth commandment.  Matthew records his words.  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5.21-22, ESV).

When we step back and look at our lives and the attitudes we have toward those who are not like us, we often find a slighting of the image of God in our heart.  We must recognize this as the sin that it is and be driven by the law to the wonderful grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, for it is only in him that our murderous, hearts, hands, mouths, and minds can be redeemed.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism offers the following exposition of the fifth commandment.

“Q. 63. Which is the fifth commandment?  A. The fifth commandment is, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother:  that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’

“Q. 64. What is required in the fifth commandment?  A. The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.

“Q. 65. What is forbidden in the fifth commandment?  A. The fifth commandment forbiddeth the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongeth to everyone in their several places and relations.

“Q. 66. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment?  A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment is a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.”

That we are to honor our parents is perfectly clear from this commandment; however, the Westminster Divines pushed past honoring parents to honoring “everyone in their several places and relations.”  The Westminster application of course increases the weight of the fifth commandment.  In many ways, Michael Horton’s treatment of this command parallels the Westminster Divines treatment, but Horton, writing a book, had more room to develop the argument for this broader understanding of the fifth commandment.

Horton approaches his argument, in part, by unpacking the family table found in Ephesians 6.  In dealing with Ephesians 6.6-8 he writes, “To serve our earthly superiors is to serve our heavenly Superior; therefore, our attention, efficiency, and diligence are to be motivated not by whether the boss shows enough respect for our work, but by the fact that God our heavenly Father is pleased when we help build a good car or house, use our time at work efficiently, or read and pray with our family.  We can endure many of the frustrations of working conditions when we realize that the dignity of our work is measured by God’s satisfaction, not merely by our employer’s” (Horton, 138).  Following this exposition, Horton goes on to deal with the Youthism, Nowism, Pretentiousness, and Me-ism that plague our culture and rail against honoring others, especially elders.  Essentially, in each of these sections, Dr. Horton is saying we need to get over ourselves.  Whether we are talking about honoring our parents, boss, friends, or anyone else humility is required.

In the fifth chapter, “Rest Assured,” Dr. Horton delves into the fourth commandment which states, “⁸Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  ⁹Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, ¹⁰but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.  On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.  ¹¹For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20.8-11, ESV).

Early in the chapter, Horton admits that his view is at odds with many, perhaps the majority, protestant Bible scholars.  The historic position on the Sabbath is summed up in Westminster Shorter Catechism #58-62.

“Q. 58. What is required in the fourth commandment? A. The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word; expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself.

“Q. 59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.

“Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified? A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.

“Q. 61. What is forbidden in the fourth commandment? A. The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission, or careless performance, of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.

“Q. 62. What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment? A. The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment are, God’s allowing us six days of the week for our own employments, his challenging a special propriety in the seventh, his own example, and his blessing the sabbath day.”

Horton sums up his position when he writes, “Nevetheless, I wish to make the case for my conviction that the fourth commandment belongs in what we call the ‘ceremonial’ rather than the ‘moral’ part of the law.  Remember, the ‘moral’ part of God’s law is what is eternally binding on believers in both testaments, whereas the shadows of Christ in the civil and ceremonial laws disappear when the reality (Christ) appears.  To suggest that the fourth commandment, then, is part of the ceremonial, rather than the moral, law is to say that it is no longer binding on Christians” (Horton, 124-25).

To support his view, Dr. Horton makes two key points that we must test.  First, he puts forth the idea that the origin of the Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments rather than at Creation.  Second, Dr. Horton argues that the Sabbath is not part of the moral law.

In response to Dr. Horton’s first point, we can simply read the reason given in the Ten Commandments for celebrating a Sabbath.  “¹¹For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20.11, ESV).  Granted, the reason given in Deuteronomy 5, a later repeating of the Ten Commandments, is the remembrance of the Exodus, but the Exodus 20 reason still gives cause to see the Sabbath as rooted, at least partially, in God’s rest from Creation in Genesis 2.

Horton’s second point, that the Sabbath is not part of the Moral law runs into problems with the very reasons he gives to support his thesis.  He writes, “First, the apostle Paul argues in the first two chapters of Romans that the law written on the conscience and the law written on tablets of stone are one and the same.  In other words, the moral law (Ten Commandments) is the written expression of the natural law engraved on the human conscience” (Horton, 125).  The obvious conclusion then is either that the Sabbath is part of the Moral law, or that the fourth commandment was not part of the Ten Commandments.  However, Horton comes up with a third option.  He views the Sabbath as part of the Ten Commandments, but as unique among the other nine in that while it is part of the Ten, unlike the other nine, it is not part of the Moral law.  In the end, Dr. Horton’s argument, that unlike the other nine commandments we do not find a Sabbath principle stamped on the human conscience, seems tenuous.

The second reason Dr. Horton gives for not seeing the Sabbath as part of the Moral law is that we find each of the other nine commandments dealt with in the New Testament but not the Sabbath.  He writes, “We search in vain to find one single New Testament commandment concerning the Sabbath” (Horton, 126).  However, Matthew 12.1-13, Mark 2.27-28, and other passages do deal with the Sabbath in light of Jesus Christ.  Admittedly, one difficulty is the shift from the Sabbath on Saturday, the last day of week to the Lord’s Day on Sunday, the first day of the week.  Again, multiple verses deal with this shift as well, such as Acts 20.5-12 and 1 Corinthians 16.1-2.  Finally, Hebrews 3.7-4.13, which some scholars have called “an inspired commentary…on Genesis 2.2 and Psalm 95.7-11,” lays out a robust understanding of the Sabbath in light of Jesus Christ.

In the end, Dr. Horton makes some very helpful points on two fronts.  First, his work is helpful to work through for our understanding of the implications of the work of Jesus Christ on the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath; however, I think he goes too far by saying that the Sabbath is only ceremonial.  Second, his work at the end of the chapter dealing with the practical benefits not only of a weekly Sabbath, but also of corporate worship is a much-needed reminder.

As someone who holds a higher view of the Lord’s Day the questions that I come back to again and again are these – Am I so satisfied in and trusting of God and his will that I am willing, and even desirous, to set aside my agenda to celebrate the Lord’s Day?  Am I living under the illusion that I am such an island that a day of purposeful worship and rest is not of profound benefit to me?

What are your thoughts on this thorny issue?

If you want to dig deeper there are multiple resources here, including a position paper (with minority reports of course) from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that can also be accessed here.  Or, you could check out Edmund Clowney’s book, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments.

Michael Horton’s fourth chapter, “Guarding God’s Reputation,” deals with the third commandment.  What is the third commandment?  “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold guiltless anyone who takes his name in vain”  (Exodus 20.7, ESV).

In typical style, Horton drives straight to the heart of the matter, pointing out that it is neither the misuse of God’s name by non-Christians nor the absence of the exaltation of God’s name in the public square that is the greatest issue, but the misuse of God’s name by Christians and the absence of God’s name in church.  He asks “Why should Christians lament the day when the Ten Commandments were taken down from the wall in the classroom when few of them can name these decrees themselves” (Horton, 96)?  There are a great many parallels between the church in 2010 and the Israelites of the Old Testament on this very issue.  With this sobering analysis laid out, Horton turns to Hosea to show how God prosecuted the Israelites for their failure to hallow his name.

Horton breaks down our violations of the third commandment into four categories:  Using God; Hypocrisy Heresy and Error; and Blasphemy.  It is easy enough to see these categories and think we have nothing to worry about; however, Horton does an excellent job of working through these issues in order to show us our own deficiencies.  One statement I found particularly pertinent was “It is easy to use God’s name instead of fearing it” (Horton, 100).  This thought left me asking myself, “Why do I pray?”  Do I invoke Jesus name in prayer in order to seek my own will or the will of God?

There are many other great points in this chapter.  What are your thoughts?

Let me begin by apologizing for not posting this yesterday.  For some reason, I sat at my desk yesterday thinking that it was Wednesday.  Perhaps I drank too much coffee, perhaps not enough.  Either way I am a day late, and I apologize.

In chapter three, “Worshipping the Correct God Correctly,” Michael Horton deals with the second commandment.  The second commandment has been at the center of much debate throughout the history of the church.  Horton does a great job of pointing out that the application of the second commandment goes far beyond the iconoclastic controversies of the 8^th and 16^th centuries.

Commenting on the focus of the reformers he wrote, “The glory of God, not the lowest common denominator of popular fancy, drove every new adventure” (Horton, 73).  The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is the chief end man?” and answers, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”  This principle applies in worship as well.

When theologians discuss what is appropriate in corporate worship the Regulative Principle of Worship often comes up.  Depending on the circle you are in some will understand the Regulative Principle to mean that we can do in worship anything not forbidden and others will understand it to mean that we can only do in worship those things that are commanded.  As you read Horton’s chapter on the second commandment and evaluate his arguments in light of Scripture, what are your thoughts?

In chapter two, “No Other gods,” of The Law of Perfect Freedom, Michael Horton unpacks the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20.3, ESV).  As is typical Horton comes with some hard-hitting words and forces us to the cross.  His thoughts on what we call an idol are very helpful.

We have all heard sermons on the “modern-day” idols of money, sex, work, and family, and certainly, these can be idols that we must tear down.  However, Dr. Horton deals with a set of idols that are far more nuanced and probably far more prevalent in the church.  He begins by pointing out the problem with so many different formulations of God within “evangelicalism.”  To talk about gods that have different attributes is to talk about two different gods.  When we fall into the very subtle trap of thinking God exists for us or that we, through some religious practice such as faith or prayer, can obligate God to ourselves, then we have turned from the God of the Bible to worship another god with the same vocabulary.  Horton rights, “We slip into paganism by thinking that somehow what we do for God will create an obligation on His part” (Horton, 40).

Following a helpful discussion on what idolatry is, Horton asks, “What are our idols?”  His answers to this question are great:  faith, experience, love, self, and happiness.  Horton argues, when we put our faith in any of these things, we are serving an idol.  “Americans believe there is a power in faith, a magic in believing, and this is every bit as ‘primitive’ as the Egyptian, Roman, and medieval superstitions we have described.  The act of faith is what really counts; the object of faith is peripheral” (Horton, 51).

Finally, Horton deals with the pitfalls of universalism and pluralism as they pertain to the first commandment.  His discussion on prayer in school, nativity scenes on the capital lawn, and other social displays of Christianity alongside what are perceived as equally valid religious expressions is helpful.  He writes, “It is, after all, in the best interest of the gospel that Christ’s birth is not celebrated alongside other religious festivals, that prayers are not offered in such a way as to give the impression that Christ is unnecessary as the only mediator” (Horton, 66).

Michael Horton’s treatment of the first commandment is certainly provocative.  I was left asking myself three questions.  In what ways do I act as if I have somehow obligated God to my service?  Am I utterly satisfied with God as revealed in Scripture?  What is the object of my faith, really?

What are your thoughts?

Dr. Michael Horton consistently proclaims the gospel in a loud, clear voice.  His book, The Law of Perfect Freedom, is no different.  In chapter 1, “Doing the Right Thing,” Horton deals with two issues that struck me as exceptionally helpful in an evangelical culture that is often confused about our God.

First, Dr. Horton tackled the million-dollar question.  “How can I know God’s will?”  Horton writes, “If God really is in charge, there is no ‘perfect will’ we step in or out of, depending on how good we are at reading tea leaves or discerning ‘signs’ of God’s leading…  What this does for those burdened with anxiety over knowing God’s will is amazing.  It places our search for God’s will, not in the subjective hunches we often attribute to the Holy Spirit, but in the revealed will of God” (p18).  As odd as it seems, limiting how we find God’s will in this way provides great freedom.  Why is this the case?

Second, Horton addresses the question of why God gave the Law in this chapter as well.  When we misunderstand why God gave the Law we quickly make categorical mistakes in our theology that leads to massive problems in our understanding of the gospel and the Christian life.  Horton writes, “The law tells us what we ought to do, and this leads us to despair of meeting God’s standard.  Then the gospel tells us what God has done for us already in Christ, meeting the standard as our substitute and taking our punishment on Himself so that we could be regarded as righteous” (p21).  Later he writes, “From Genesis to Revelation, every figure, every story, every image, every lesson is the wrapping in which we find God’s gift, Jesus Christ” (p27).  Paul says as much in Galatians 3.15-29, as does Jesus in Luke 24.44ff.  How does this understanding of the Law (and all of Scripture for that matter) differ from the popular understanding of Scripture as a collection of rules and character studies for us to emulate?

A right understanding of the law is the necessary basis to a right understanding of the gospel.  I hope that as we read this book we come to a better understanding of both.