Tag: state

Book Briefs: “Anselm of Canterbury (Christian Biographies for Young Readers)” by Simonetta Carr

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Anselm of Canterbury by Simonetta Carr (Christian Biographies for Young Readers)Simonetta Carr has done it again. She has given us a superb historical biography of an important figure in Christian History written for young readers. And once again, an older reader like me, has enjoyed it as much or more than the intended audience.

Anselm of Canterbury is now the sixth title in the “Christian Biographies for Young Readers” series, a set of superbly illustrated and beautifully crafted hardcover books for children. Reformation Heritage Books is to be thanked for providing this coffee-table-quality set of treasures. I’ve previously reviewed Athanasius and Lady Jane Grey. This work on Anselm is even better than the two earlier works I read. Perhaps his story is more intriguing or less known, but I found the work even more captivating than the previous volumes, while the artwork was as engaging and the history as fascinating as ever.

Anselm became the unwilling archbishop of Canterbury who would rather have lived a life of solitude. Instead he served his fellow man and his church and state superiors. Known for his teaching and his care of the sick and the poor, Anselm is best remembered for his book Cur Deus Homo (Why God-Man?). In this book he develops his satisfaction theory of the atonement, providing a well reasoned argument for why Jesus had to become the God-man. In the simplified explanation of Simonetta Carr:

According to Anselm, even one “small” disobedience to God is greater than many worlds. Only one person could save people from this terrible problem–someone who was fully God, so He could live a perfect life and take the terrible punishment for all the sins of others, and fully man, because it was man who sinned, so man should repay. That’s why Jesus, who is fully God, became fully man for us. (p. 43)

As the above excerpt shows, Carr’s writing is suitable for older children and doesn’t dumb down history to be accessible. She aims to unfold the study of history for young readers but her care for accuracy prevents her from adjusting the story to be simpler and easier. She presents the real history, with its conundrums and questions, for her young readers. This title raises the question of the role of church and state, and the function of the Roman Catholic pope. She satisfactorily explains the quandary of church relations with the state, but only briefly sketches the nature of the papacy. In doing so she provides a platform for careful parents to engage their kids in the informed assessment of church history without overly simplifying complex debates and forcing premature conclusions.

Like the other titles in the series, period maps and illustrations illuminate the pages of her book. Masterful illustrations by Matt Abraxas and engaging full color photographs spark the imagination. Also included are excerpts of Anselm’s writings and interesting facts about the customs and lifestyle of his time period.

If you pick up a copy of this book, you will want to pick up the entire set. Books on Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, and John Owen are also available. I hear she is working on John Knox as the next biography in this important series. I highly recommend this book and encourage you to pick up the entire series. You can get a deal on the first five books of the series over at Westminster Bookstore, where you can also pre-order the volume on Anselm.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, Westminster Bookstore, or direct from Reformation Heritage Books.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

More Resources on Thinking Through the Homosexuality Issue

~ Bob Hayton

In my last post, I shared some of John Piper’s thoughts about homosexual marriage. He clearly does not endorse it, but he doesn’t want to officially hop on a political bandwagon promoting one particular legislative approach to dealing with this in our culture and society at large. The job of churches and pastors is to preach the Word and inform the laypeople with the effect that they apply biblical principles to their political and social activities in a way that honors God and upholds the mission of the church.

Here are some additional resources for dealing with homosexuality, which is an increasing problem for American evangelical Christians, churches and pastors.

First, I encourage you to read this moving testimony about a converted homosexual who served God in spite of his struggles and his AIDS. Next, I’d really encourage you to read my review of Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. It will open your eyes to the struggles some Christians face regarding homosexuality and give you perspective in looking at others who have identified themselves as homosexual.

Another resource is The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche. You can read my review of that book, here.

I leave you with this video clip of Al Mohler discussing this issue with Mark Dever at this year’s Together 4 the Gospel conference.

John Piper’s Thoughts on Gay Marriage and Pastoral Ministry

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Recently, John Piper preached the following sermon: Let Marriage Be Held in Honor” — Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune picked up on his sermon and claimed he was “opting out” of the marriage fight, referring to the proposed marriage amendment to the MN state constitution that is on the ballot this Fall (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman). Piper clarified his remarks, explaining he wasn’t opting out but rather helping his congregation think through the matter biblically. Still the fact remains that Piper has held back from overtly supporting the amendment, preferring not to politicize the church or give explicit weight to one legislative approach to dealing with homosexuality.

Here are some excerpts from that sermon which provide possible reasons for his coming up short of a full endorsement of the marriage amendment.

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

…

8. Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

Please try to understand this: When I warn against the politicizing of the church, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples.

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.

[quoted from the online transcript of Piper’s sermon dated June 16/17, 2012]

The Desiring God blog later posted a fuller transcript of Piper’s words surrounding point 8 from his sermon. Piper also went on to give a series of brief blog posts addressing the topic of homosexuality which I found very helpful. I provide links to these articles below.

I appreciate Piper’s resolve to not allow the church to become too politicized. We need to stand for God’s truth, but in matters of social policy and interacting with the fallen world in which we live, there are valid points to be made for competing visions of legislative strategy. I support marriage as being defined as between one man and one woman. But I also recognize the political reality of the fallen world we live in. There are legal and economic benefits of marriage that could be bestowed on civil unions, and if they want to call that “marriage”, why should I be surprised? Will legislating a definition of marriage fix the problem of the heart? Will it not only add fuel to the fire when it comes to the continuing the fight for “true equality” from our homosexual neighbors? Will it really solve anything?

Dave Doran on Why the Label “Fundamentalist” Doesn’t Work Anymore

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Dave Doran has posted some reflections on where we are after the Advancing the Church conference, with respect to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals (or at least where he is coming from). Of course separation and fellowship are the twin concerns for today’s fundamentalists: just how much fellowship can we permit with conservative evangelicals who don’t proudly wear the label “Fundamentalist”? Now that Kevin Bauder has clarified his current stance and hesitations over extending full fellowship to someone like Mark Dever, perhaps Doran sees the need to clarify some statements of his own. In any case, the last few posts on Doran’s blog have been meaty and traced the development of his thinking on these questions over the last 20 years or more.

In yesterday’s post, Doran discussed fences, shibboleths, fundamentalism, non-fundamentalist separatists, and more. His conclusion is worth posting here in full, but I encourage you to read his whole post (or better yet scroll down from here and read the last several “reflections” posts). I’m glad Doran continues to explain his take on things as the questions he’s exploring need to be hammered out by fundamentalists, and have needed to be for several years (or more).

…I am not advocating extending Christian fellowship to those who have denied the faith. I am not advocating toleration of those who do it. Just the opposite, in fact. I am advocating that these very specific questions be the ones that govern our decision making. Those questions are the baseline for fellowship and cooperation. A lot more matters to me than these, but anything other than the right answers here prevents it. The circle of people that can answer these questions satisfactorily is not limited to self-professing fundamentalists. IOW, there are separatists who don’t claim to be fundamentalists. My fellowship is limited to those self-professing fundamentalists who are genuine separatists and also other genuine separatists even if they don’t call themselves fundamentalists.

That last sentence prompts the real question of the hour””will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence? If so, is that a fence that can be defended biblically and practically?

I agree almost entirely here. I still consider myself a fundamentalist in many respects, but I’m not in a church which considers itself part of the fundamentalist movement. Yet the concern for doctrinal purity and biblical living is equal to or more than what I have found in many fundamentalist churches. I’m interested to hear your take on this, too. Do you agree or disagree with Doran? I’m all ears.

Huckabee's Great Night, and Mine

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

Huckabee’s Night

Mike Huckabee surprised a lot of people, including me. The polls showed him declining in the south, with either McCain or Romney taking those states from him. Instead he won Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, and also West Virginia (full results here). He came within a few thousand votes of taking Missouri, and was a close second in Oklahoma.

Sadly, McCain won almost all the delegates in California, took all of Missouri’s winner-take-all count, and added other populous states to his delegate totals. Mathematically, it’s almost impossible for either Huckabee or Romney to win now [HT: Racefor2008]. Huckabee’s best chance is for the party to rally around him instead of Romney as the conservative alternative to McCain. And in truth, Huckabee is more viable than Romney at this point, with Romney’s failure to win in the south and Romney’s failure to win primaries.

I’m suspecting a McCain-Huckabee ticket will eventually emerge. That might be enough to rally all wings of the party around the nominatee. Regardless, Huckabee’s message is getting out and that’s a good thing. Servant leadership, the FAIR tax, standing up against corporate greed — these and other planks of his message are very important for the Republican establishment to hear. I hope the Republican party changes for the better as a result of this election cycle.

My Night

Now Huckabee had a great night, and I had an interesting one. I went to my first caucus and discovered firsthand how important one voice can be.

First of all, I saw firsthand how incredible the voter turnout was. At my caucusing center, we had 3 times the number they expected, and probably more. Still, my precinct and ward (St Paul, Precinct 3, ward 6) only had 5 people attending. I live in St. Paul, in a largely democratic area. At the caucusing center, though, there was at least 100-150 people.

A local Christian high school was volunteering, and had their students read off letters from the candidates. But when it came time for Huckabee’s letter, there wasn’t one. Apparently the other candidates had just emailed letters in, and Huckabee’s campaign didn’t. But because I was there, with the letter in my hand, I was able to read it in front of everyone in my half of the center (we had to split into 2 rooms).

It was rewarding to be able to ensure Huckabee’s message was heard, and I was excited to hear Huckabee do quite well in our room. There was no clear leader, but it seemed McCain and Huckabee did best, followed by Romney and Paul.

I am now one of the delegates going to our house district convention (HD66A), and I and my fellow delegate from my particular precinct/ward will both be casting votes for Huckabee.

I thought the caucus system was great, and it gives people an opportunity to be involved. I am now the chair for our small little precinct, and was able to get a resolution passed for our state party platform to consider needed judicial reform.

I had a fun night, even though it was my daughter’s 2nd birthday, and I rushed home after the caucus to finish the celebration with birthday cake. I encourage everyone to keep supporting Huckabee, and in the process to learn more about how to be involved in local politics. We have a right and responsibility to be involved. And one person can make a difference.