The second annual Elephant Room event is over and the blogosphere is already lit with responses. I had the opportunity to attend a simulcast of the event in Lansing, MI at Riverview Church, one of Mark Driscoll’s Acts29 church plants. During the event, I tweeted around 100 quotes from the participants using the SharperIron Twitter account and took 4 pages of personal notes.

What follows will not be a summary of each of the seven conversations. That would be an exercise in vain repetition since Trevin Wax masterfully transcribed (and very accurately, might I add) on his blog what each person said, pretty much word for word. You can read it at Kingdom People.

What I do want to do is offer some personal reflections and observations about the event as someone who was able to not merely read what was said but see it said. As is the trouble with properly interpreting emails, so it is with properly interpreting the words of others in a setting like this when you cannot see the facial expressions and body language that sometimes enhance or say more than the person’s words.

Theology

There is no doubt that the invitation of Bishop T. D. Jakes sparked a huge controversy and was the focal point of the event leading up to Wednesday. Immediately before The Elephant Room 2 blog announced that Jakes was being invited, it announced that Mark Dever was going to join the event. Then, immediately after the Jakes announcement, the Dever announcement was removed. To my knowledge, no explanation was ever published, from either MacDonald or Dever, as to why Dever withdrew his presence from ER2, but it does not take a seminary class in theology to figure it out.read more

The Quest For Comfort: The Story of the Heidelberg Catechism

by William Boekestein

Reformation Heritage Books 2011

Hardcover, 32 pp.

With the renewed interest today in the Reformation, its history and theology, it is not surprising to find more and more books written for children that highlight some of the heroes and heroines of that era. What follows are two brief reviews of recent books devoted to lesser-known Reformation-era figures.

The Quest for Comfort: The Story of The Heidelberg Catechism

Growing up, I was introduced to a wide assortment of “heroes of the Christian faith.” But most of them were Americans—pastors, or presidents, or missionaries—and most were from the last two hundred years. As an adult, I came to a deeper appreciation of the Reformation, and I learned about a whole era of church history that was to some degree overlooked in my education. I now appreciate men like John Calvin and Martin Luther for their courage and tenacity, their faith and piety. As I continue to study the Reformation, it’s lesser-known figures are also catching my eye. The work of men whom history has almost entirely forgotten continues down to this day in such influential church documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism.

In a new book by William Boekestein, the story of the creation of the Heidelberg Catechism is told on a child’s level. The Quest for Comfort: The Story of The Heidelberg Catechism (Reformation Heritage, 2011) traces the life stories of Caspar Olevianus, Zacharius Ursinus, and Frederick III. These three forgotten men, are the primary authors of the most enduring Reformation-era Catechism: The Heidelberg Catechism.read more

Dr. Warren Vanhetloo was one of the more influential individuals in fundamentalist higher education. He was the founding dean of both Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis, Minnesota) and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, Pennsylvania). He was taken home to his Lord in the fall of 2010.

A couple of years ago, I sent an enquiry to “Dr. Van” about a matter of historical interest. He responded with a series of letters which chronicled much of his life and career. He knew that I was a historian and he knew that he would die before long. I believe that he meant these letters to be a final summation of certain aspects of his ministry.

Dr. Van’s writing tended to be stream-of-consciousness. Some of his observations were never intended for public consumption. Nevertheless, the parts of the narrative that address his life and ministry are both interesting and instructive. They give a glimpse into a bygone era of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, preserving some of the atmosphere of those days.

I have taken the liberty of editing some of this correspondence, grouping sections of text by chronology and topic. Of course, I have tried to correct misspellings and typographical errors. In a few cases, I have inserted or deleted a few words to smooth the text. The substance, however, and almost all of the wording are Dr. Vanhetloo’s own.

One word of caution: these were informal communications. They were not proofread by Dr. Van. As you read, please remember that any of us may be thinking one thing, but writing something else. I suspect that this has happened once or twice with Dr. Van’s narrative. For example, I am not sure whether he was saved and ministered in an ethnically “Armenian” church (as he writes) or in a theologically Arminian church.read more

“you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a man carries his son, in all the way that you went until you came to this place.” (Deut. 1:31)

Richard Dawkins, the most prominent apologist of atheism in the world today has said,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins isn’t the first to say such things about God, just the most adamant. He is above all a propagandist, with a deep-seated antipathy to the Christian faith. For a Christian—even the most brilliant one—to reason with Dawkins on these points would be like two generals trying to parley before a battle, when one of them has dedicated his life to destroying the other.

As a former atheist recently said to me, “I read Dawkins’s God Delusion, and concluded that if arguments so weak, so circular, given by a man who obviously has a serious problem with God—if this is the best atheism has to offer, then God must really exist.” She later became a Christian. She admits though, that she still has her problems with the Old Testament. So do many Christians. At times they can be nearly as critical of God as Dawkins is.

After all, isn’t the God of the Old Testament the same one Who:read more

• Destroyed the earth with a flood?
• Called for the death of the first born of Egypt?
• Called for the extermination of some of His own people?
• Called for the extermination of all the Canaanites?
• Let David off scot-free after he planned the death of a man then took the man’s wife into his harem?

Especially in light of increasing public pressures not to spank children, parents are legitimately questioning whether or not spanking should be a part of their repertoire. As parents who seek to train up our children as God has prescribed, we must look to His word as our authoritative source for parental training. Thankfully, the Bible has much to say regarding parental discipline. But can it bring clarity to the question of spanking? Does the Bible teach that parents should spank their children?

I believe yes, and yes—but with very specific parameters and limitations. The Bible is quite clear about disciplinary method, purpose, and results. Biblical discipline is always to be conducted in love and for the purpose of the growth and godliness of the one being disciplined. It is never punishment, and never abusive. It is painful, yes, but should never be harmful. Over the course of five articles I will consider in detail five very direct passages pertaining to the physical disciplining of children: Proverbs 13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15, and Hebrews 12:5-13.

As this series begins, I must preface it by noting that many events of the Hebrew Bible take place under the economy of the Mosaic Law, and because that Law governed Israel as a nation and not church-age believers of today, we need to be cautious to properly understand Old Testament context. We certainly don’t want to misapply a principle or a mandate. But the book of Proverbs makes things relatively simple. Proverbs is filled with universal truths not restricted to any particular era or economy, but broadly applicable to God’s people in any age. So, we begin there.

He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently. (NASB, Prov. 13:24)

The Hebrew shebet, references a rod or staff, used typically in the pastoral setting as a physical restrainer and teacher for the governing of a flock. The one who hates his son is withholding (Heb., cho-sek, participle) the rod from, or refraining to use the rod on his son.

Hate (Heb., sane) is a prominently used word indicating a disposition one might have toward an enemy. In a literal grammatical-historical understanding, the meaning of the phrase is crystal clear: withholding the rod of discipline is simply hateful toward a child.read more