Bovine Theology

I’ve really enjoyed reading through the Jesus Storybook Bible with my children. It is written for young children and creatively tells many stories of the Bible in language that young ones can understand. But what I like best about this Bible is that it tells the rest of the story. Each story points to Christ. Last night we read about the promise of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah. At the end of the story it tells of One who would be born in the same family, who would be the Rescuer. Tonight’s story is that of God’s call to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. At the end, it states how the Rescuer would also climb a hill with wood on His back and would willing lay down his life. But as we know, unlike Isaac, Jesus actually was the sacrifice. The ram that God provided to Abraham points to the Lamb of God. Just like Isaac was Abraham’s only son, Jesus was God’s only Son. The main point of the story is that in both instances, God provided the sacrifice.

I’m not sure how much my kids understand. But the point is that they are hearing not just the stories, but the Story. The entire Bible is one large story that culminates in Christ’s coming, His death and resurrection, and ultimately His return for His People.

In my preaching classes I was taught that this is to be our object of every sermon. Every time a preacher preaches he should end with Christ. I love how this Bible does this so clearly for children. And I love the big eyes that I see across the top of the book as I read to them. It makes me want to be like them, wide-eyed as I read all of Scripture. It is a great primer for children to begin understanding the unfolding Story of Scripture, and I commend it to anyone with young kids.

FIDE-O usually writes things I agree with, in content, but sometimes not in manner. They can tend to be caustic. So I was surprised today when reading the current post that it seemed so well-balanced, both in content and in candor. Then, as I finished the article I noticed a link to read the rest of it at modernreformation.org. It was an article by Michael Horton. (I’m not sure my link will work, but you can go to the archives, and then go to the Sept/Oct 2006 issue). I don’t mean this a knock to the FIDE-O guys. I’m glad they posted it. I just wish they wrote with as much grace more often.

And speaking of grace, I sure need an extra dose of it today. On Monday we found out my mother-in-law would no longer be able to keep our girls after preschool (and on the days they don’t go). The termination of services was immediate (due to a pinched nerve). So I am taking vacation the rest of the week to keep the girls. It’s been fun, some. But it’s also been unnerving. My “anger problem” has resurfaced. But let me focus on the positive. For example, how much fun is it to stick a doll up your shirt and announce, “I have a baby in my tummy!”? Evidently it is tons of fun. At least for 3 and 4 year old girls. It is also “fun” for the 3 year old (well almost, she’ll be 3 next month) to announce “I tee tee’d in my pull-up,” just mere minutes after putting a clean one on her. Then, not doing a very good job of containing my frustration, I find her sitting in a puddle in my chair. Yes, my chair. Evidently, the way she was sitting, the pull-up didn’t do it’s job. And so now, my chair is drying and I have to sit in a hard wooden chair as I type this. Do you feel my pain?

Now, I’ve just been told, we are at the hospital and we’re going to take my daughter’s baby out of her tummy (that’s the way they do it, you know). But the baby has to stay until she’s ready to go home. So Aggie is now getting and giving shots to everyone. Oh, the drama! But I can now announce that I’ve held her precious baby and that we must all be quiet now because she is resting.

Jerry Falwell died unexpectantly. It’s been interesting to read some of the responses, from Ralph Reed’s initial response just moments after the announcement, to Jason’s at FIDE-O, to Jolly Blogger’s, and maybe most especially Steve Camp’s. For the most part, many Christians seem in some way appreciative of Falwell and his ministry. It seems to me, from my reading, the closer that people were to him in relationship, the more committed they were to him as a person. May you’re saying, “no duh!” But my thought is that most want to admire from a distance those in Christendom who are controversial. It’s safe. I think that is what many have done and will do with Falwell. But the reality that has struck me is that those who knew him in some way, who have spent time around him, are unapologetically appreciative of him as a person and his ministry. That ought to teach us something of the importance of relationships. In our denomination, Frank Barker is in many ways a father of the PCA. Now in my short history, I’ve actually had people say to me things that were less than complimentary about Dr. Barker. But I’ve always defended him. Say what you want about Frank Barker, the man lives what he believes. I know this from working in the church he planted 40+ years ago, and from passing him in the halls, sitting under him in seminary classes, seeing him at church on Sunday, etc… He is the same man every where he goes. He’s authentic. He’s the real deal. I may not agree with everything he says (e.g. we differ on the creation account), but you can’t argue with his life. He doesn’t have “preacher mode” that I’ve ever witnessed. He speaks in the same voice wherever he is. And he acts the same way. He’s humble, and lives simply so that he can give generously. And the only way I know those things are from those around him. He doesn’t brag. So my guess is that those who knew Jerry Falwell best, and who spent any time around him, have the most right to speak about the man following his death. I may not agree with him that teletubbies are evil, but it sounds like he genuinely loved Christ and wanted to make Him known.

Okay, so to end on a lighter note, let me whole-heartedly endorse a new choice in breakfast cereals: Arrr-mini-ohs, with the tag line, “It’s all up to you maties!” And last but not least, my friend Van forwarded this to me: a disturbing, frustrating, yet humourous account of why people don’t like Christians (not for the easily offended…Mom!).

I’m too tired to write much tonight, so I’ll share some good reading with you.

John Piper has written a compelling article entitled “The Morning I Heard the Voice of God.” I read it with a great deal of discomfort. That was convicting! But I finished it in deep worship of God.

Anthony Carter shares his recent talk at a men’s retreat calling them to have “a bigger, better, more biblical picture of God.”

Van Edwards gives us a glimpse into his personal worship of God in reading through Exodus.

Dan Barber, a friend of mine studying at Covenant Theological Seminary, has done his homework in dealing with the recent “discovery” of Jesus’ tomb. Click here to read it. Dr. Steve Cowan of the Apologetics Resource Center has also written on this subject.

Steve Camp has written a two-part series (so far) entitled “There is none like Him: recovering a high view and reverence of God.” Part 1 | Part 2

J.W. Hendryx has written “Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture.”

Finally, Glenn Lucke shares his tribute to Dustin Salter, a young RUF pastor who recently died. I did not know Dustin but I know several people who knew him and whose lives have been impacted by his ministry.

After writing a piece (again, not meant to be exhaustive or systematic, just anecdotal) on why I hold to Covenant Theology, a good friend of mine (Van Edwards) commented, “So when I read this, should I interpret it as a literal allegory or allegorically literal?” I’m sure it was tongue-in-cheek. But it prompted me in just as much fun to write a little prod back. However, I thought I’d write a bit more, mostly for myself, but if it can help to carry a dialogue along with anyone else, then good!

I think what Van is getting at in his comment is, if I consent that some Scripture should be understood allegorically, then how do I know what Scripture that is, and what Scripture that is not. However, my jab back to him and my thought now is, “Isn’t that a fair question for the Dispensationalist as well?” First, I have not found a Covenant Theologian (in my circles…namely, conservative) that would not hold to the view that Scripture should be interpreted literally where possible. That is to say, unless there is a reason to interpret it non-literally, then it should be understood literally. The Dispensationalists that I’ve been under and those whose books I’ve read say the same thing. The difference between both groups is what Scripture is to be understood literally.

From my Covenantal viewpoint, I come to prophecy not for a detailed roadmap, but for hope (Isa. 40:1; Luke 21:28; 1 Thess. 4:18, 5:11). When I consider many of the prophecies in the Old Testament that speak to the coming Messiah, I see some details revealed (that were literally fulfilled, although the readers didn’t get it any more than Jesus’ contemporaries…even after He pointed them out) that point to how Jesus came, lived and died. However, most of the prophecy was speaking to give God’s people hope, and to point them to the object of their faith. If we see through a glass dimly, they were looking through a really, really dim glass. We look back at OT prophecy about the Messiah, and say, “It’s so clear!” Now when we consider the return of Christ, we are in their shoes. But we don’t have a detailed roadmap (in my opinion). Rather we have an overview of the overall movement.

Other than prophecy, we (Covenant Theologians) and Dispensationalists share much in common. This is why our libraries look so similar and we often attend the same conferences. It really comes down to how we approach prophetical Scripture, and more specifically who is/are God’s people(s) and what will the end look like. Dispensationalists like to say it is hermeneutics. They accuse Covenantal folks of interpreting Scripture allegorically. But again, find a conservative CT who treats any/all Scripture allegorically. I haven’t found one. Rather, I’ve found only those who come to certain types of Biblical writing (literary types) with allegorical glasses (such as poetry).

So is it hermeneutics or the system of theology that triumphs the Dispensational cause? The ones who I’ve talked with over the years argued they, as Dispensationalists, don’t teach theology. They teach Scripture. And they do so literally. Consistently literally. But this never seemed right to me. First, what bothered me about this was logic. As I grew older I came to realize that no one comes to anything they study without predispositions toward a system of understanding. This same argument is one we use for those trying to prove evolution. They come to every “scientific” study they conduct with a predisposition toward their system of “evolutionism.” We all do this. The Dispensationalist argues that his system is simply the Bible, and the literal interpretation of that. Okay then, that’s your system. But then can your system triumph the actual meaning of the text? I say, from logic alone, “yes!” For example, when Christ said at the Last Supper, “This is my body,” was it literally body or literally bread? Now I’m not trying to stir up a debate here of Lutheran type. My point is, what did Christ literally mean and what does it literally mean for us? Most Dispensationalists say communion (the Lord’s Supper) is a memorial. It’s not literally Christ’s flesh. To use a prophetic example, what about Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones? What about when Jeremiah said he would remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh? (that was Jeremiah wasn’t it…it’s getting late!) Even Darby stated that John 14:18 spoke of an invisible coming of the Holy Spirit (not visible or “literal”).

Recently, I listened to a speech by John MacArthur (entitled, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist”). In this talk, he laid out the premise that if your hermeneutic is correct, they you’ll get Israel right, and if you get

The second issue that has bothered me about the Dispensationalists’ claim to interpret Scripture consistently literally (the first was logic) is from Scripture itself. As I have pointed out above, there are a number of passages that Dispensationalists do not interpret literally. I will cite only one (since I have pointed out others above and even more are readily available in writings by scholars who merit more attention than my own ramblings). I refer to Psalm 22. In this psalm, there are portions that were literally fulfilled. Christ did cry out, “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Soldiers did cast lots for his clothing. But Christ is not a worm (v. 6), nor did bulls surround him (v. 12), nor dogs (v. 16), nor was He afraid of the mouth of an actual lion (v. 21). My point here is that the audience of that day would not have known what portion of that prophetic psalm was to be viewed literally and what was to be viewed allegorically. A point was simply that the Messiah would suffer and die. His death would be one in innocence. This passage doesn’t give a detailed roadmap (although we understand the details in hindsight, but those that were literally fulfilled and those that were allegorical).

So while the Dispensationalist is driven by a theological system of God working inconsistently through history, Covenant Theologians are driven by a system of one single unified movement of God unfolded in history. It is the latter that I hold to. I admit I am no less objective (nor more) than the Dispensationalist when it comes to hermeneutics. Rather, we are both influenced and sometimes driven by our theological system. And so to answer my friend Van, interpret what I am saying literally, unless you deem that it must be taken allegorically!