Justin Taylor's Blog, page 213

A Christian Classical School Reading List: Grades 1-3

There are hundreds of thousands of books written for children. The challenge is discerning what is best for them to read, given so many options. I’m a sucker for good reading lists, so I’m grateful for the folks at Calvary Classical School—a classical Christian school in Hampton, VA—who has given me permission to reproduce this list below. The classical school where our kids go provides a similar list, and it’s enormously helpful.

So far I’ve been able to provide links for the grades 1-3 lists. Lord willing, and time permitting, I will provide the other lists (up to 8th grade) in future posts.

For outside reading, the books divided into three levels. Books with a “+” denote that any title in that series would be acceptable.

I’ve done my best to link to the paperback or cheapest version at Amazon. I hope this proves helpful for a lot of parents and teachers!

First Grade Reading List

Read aloud by teacher in class:

Leaf, Munro. How to Behave and Why

Leaf, Munro. How to Speak Politely and Why

Lloyd-Jones, Sally. The Jesus Storybook Bible

Taylor, Helen. Little Pilgrim’s Progress

Leithart, Peter. Wise Words: Family Stories that Bring the Proverbs to Life

Brown, Jeff. Flat Stanley

Dalgliesh, Alice. The Courage of Sarah Noble

Silverstein, Shel. A Light in the Attic

Outside Reading

Level 1

Bulla, Clyde. Daniel’s Duck

Changler, Edna. Cowboy Sam +

Frasconi, Antonio. The House that Jack Built

Graham, Margaret. Benjy’s Dog House +

Hoff, Syd. Sammy the Seal

Hoff, Syd. Danny and the Dinosaur+

Krauss, Ruth. The Carrot Seed

Lionni, Leo. Inch by Inch

Littledale, Freya. The Magic Fish

Lobel, Arnold. Frog and Toad Are Friends +

Offen, Hilda. A Treasury of Mother Goose

Seuss, Dr. Beginner Books +

Seuss, Dr. Bright and Early Books +

Tabak, Simms. There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly

Wood, Audrey. Quick as a Cricket

Level 2

Carle, Eric. The Very Hungry Caterpillar +

Davoll, Barbara. The Potluck Supper +

Daugherty, James. Andy and the Lion

Duvoisin, Roger. Petunia

Flack, Marjorie. Angus and the Ducks

Freeman, Don. Corduroy +

Galdone, Paul. The Little Red Hen

Galdone, Paul. The Three Billy Goats Gruff

Hoban, Russell. Bedtime for Frances +

Hunt, Angela. A Gift for Grandpa

Keats, Ezra. Peter’s Chair

Marshall, James. George and Martha +

McGovern, Ann. Stone Soup

Minarik, Else. Little Bear +

Numeroff, Laura. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie+

Parish, Peggy. Amelia Bedelia +

Rey, Margaret & H.A. Curious George +

Richardson, Arleta. A Day at the Fair

Sharmat, Marjorie. Nate the Great +

Zion, Gene. Harry the Dirty Dog +

Level 3

Buckley, Helen. Grandmother and I

Burton, Virginia. Maybelle the Cable Car

Coerr, Eleanor. The Josefina Story Quilt

De Regniers, Beatrice. May I Bring a Friend?

Ets, Marie. Just Me

Gramatky, Hardie. Little Toot +

Hader, Berta. The Big Snow

Keats, Ezra. Whistle for Willie

Lewis, Kim. Floss +

Lowry, Jannette. The Poky Little Puppy

McCloskey, Robert. Make Way for Ducklings

Piper, Watty. The Little Engine that Could

Potter, Beatrix. The Tale of Peter Rabbit +

Sendak, Maurice. Where the Wild Things Are

Turkle, Brinton. Thy Friend, Obadiah +

Ward, Lynd. The Biggest Bear

Wilder, Laura. My First Little House Books +

Williams, Vera. A Chair for My Mother

Second Grade Reading List

Read in class or assigned for outside reading:

Andersen, Hans C. The Emperor’s New Clothes

Brown, Marcia. Dick Whittington and His Cat

Burton, Virginia. The Little House

Burton, Virginia. Mike Mulligan and His Steamshovel

Cauley, Lorinda. The Ugly Duckling

Cleary, Beverly. The Mouse and the Motorcycle

Cleary, Beverly. Ribsy

Dalgliesh, Alice. The Bears on Hemlock Mountain

Lewis, C. S. The Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe

McCloskey, Robert. Time of Wonder

Steig, William. Doctor De Soto

Warner, Gertrude. The Box-Car Children (vol. 1)

Williams, Marjorie. The Velveteen Rabbit

Outside Reading

Level 1

Cannon, Janell. Stellaluna

Galdone, Paul. The Gingerbread Boy

Galdone, Paul. The Three Bears

Galdone, Paul. The Three Little Pigs

Kessel, Joyce. Squanto and the First Thanksgiving

Roop, Peter and Connie. Keep the Lights Burning, Abbie

Slobodkina, Esphyr. Caps for Sale

Yolen, Jane. Owl Moon

Level 2

Anderson, C. W. Billy and Blaze +

Bemelmans, Ludwig. Madeline +

Bontemps, Arna & Conroy Jack. The Fast Sooner Hound

Calhoun, Mary. Cross-Country Cat

DeBrunhoff, Jean. Babar +

Flack, Marjorie. The Story about Ping

Gag, Wanda. Millions of Cats

Gauch, Patricia. Thunder at Gettysburg

Haywood, Carolyn. Betsy & Billy +

Hope, Laura Lee. The Bobbsey Twins +

Leaf, Munro. The Story of Ferdinand

Loveless, Maude. Betsy-Tacy +

Milne, A. A. When We Were Young

Milne, A. A. Now We are Six

Politi, Leo. Song of the Swallows

Steig, William. Doctor De Soto Goes to Africa

Taha, Karen. A Gift for Tia Rosa

Warner, Gertrude. The Boxcar Children +

Ziefert, Harriet. A New Coat for Anna

Level 3

Aardemas, Verna. Why Mosquitoes Buzz in People’s Ears

Harness, Cheryl. Three Young Pilgrims

Le Gallienne, Eva. Seven Tales by H. C. Andersen

McCloskey, Robert. Blueberries for Sal

McCloskey, Robert. One Morning in Maine

McCloskey, Robert. Lentil

Mowat, Farley. Owls in the Family

Nesbit, E. The Railway Children +

Sobol, Donald. Secret Agents Four

Sproul, R. C. The King Without a Shadow

West, Jerry. The Happy Hollisters +

Williams, Jay. Danny Dunn +

Third Grade Literature List

Read in class or assigned for outside reading:

Atwater, Richard. Mr. Popper’s Penguins

Barrie, James. Peter Pan

Farley, Walter. The Black Stallion

Fleischman, Sid. The Whipping Boy

Gannett, Ruth. My Father’s Dragon

Grahame, Kenneth. The Wind in the Willows (Scholastic Jr. Classic)

Kipling, Rudyard. The Jungle Book (Scholastic Jr. Classic)

Lewis, C. S. The Horse and His Boy

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Stories (Scholastic Jr. Classic)

White, E. B. Charlotte’s Web

White, E. B. Stuart Little

Winterfeld, Henry. Detectives in Togas

Outside Reading

Level 1

Bulla, Clyde. A Lion to Guard Us

Bulla, Clyde. Shoeshine Girl

Cleary, Beverly. Henry Huggins +

Dalgliesh, Alice. The Courage of Sarah Noble

Gardiner, John. Stone Fox

Hall, Donald. Ox-Cart Man

Kellogg, Steven. Paul Bunyan

MacGregor, Ellen. Miss Pickerell +

MacLachlan, Patricia. Sarah, Plain and Tall +

McSwigan, Marie. Snow Treasure

Scieszka, Jon. The Time Warp Trio: Sam Samurai

Sobol, Donald. Encyclopedia Brown Series +

Stanley, Diane. The True Adventure of Daniel Hall

Warner, Gertrude. The Box-Car Children (excluding vol. 1) +

Level 2

Collodi C. Pinocchio

Edmonds, Walter. The Matchlock Gun

Henry, Marguerite. Misty of Chincoteague

Herriot, James. James Herriot’s Treasury

Hope, Laura Lee. The Bobbsey Twins +

Hurwitz, Johanna. Aldo Applesauce

Lindgren, Astrid. Pippi Longstocking +

Milne, A. A. Winnie the Pooh

Nesbit, E. The Railway Children +

Richardson, Arleta. In Grandma’s Attic +

Roddy, Lee. Family Adventures +

Rupp, Rebecca. Dragon of Lonely Island

Wilder, Laura. Little House on the Prairie +

Level 3

Bailey, Carolyn. Miss Hickory

Bond, Michael. Paddington +

Butterworth, Oliver. The Enormous Egg

Cleary, Beverly. Ramona +

D’Aulaire, I. E. Benjamin Franklin +

Estes, Eleanor. The Moffats

Fritz, Jean. The Cabin Faced West

Holling, H. C. Paddle-to-the-Sea +

Jackson, Dave & Neta. Trailblazer Series +

Kipling, Rudyard. Just So Stories

Lawson, Robert. Rabbit Hill

McCloskey, Robert. Homer Price

Nesbit, E. The Story of the Treasure Seekers

Peretti, Frank. The Door in the Dragon’s Throat

Reece, Colleen. American Adventure Series +

Streatfeild, Noel. Ballet Shoes

Unanswerable Who Questions

If God is for us, who can be against us?

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?

It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? . . .

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor?”

“Or who has given a gift to him

that he might be repaid?“

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

(Romans 8:31-35, 11:33-36 ESV)

Why I Believe in the Covenant of Works

Reformed theologians historically have held to a “covenant of works” (or covenant of creation) between God and Adam.  Many evangelical scholars today deny that such a thing existed. I believe that it does.

This following questions and answers cannot do justice to the relative complexity of the debate, but perhaps it will be helpful for the theologically inclined to see why some of us do believe that the Bible teaches there was such a covenant with Adam.

Was there a covenant between God and Adam?

A fruitful way to answer that is by examining the two most common objections to the presence of a covenant in the garden: (1) The Hebrew word for covenant isn’t found in Genesis 2-3 (it doesn’t show up until Genesis 6:18); (2) Covenants have to have either explicit oaths or ratification ceremonies (like animal ceremonies in Genesis 15:7-21), but this is not found in Genesis 2-3.

The first objection commits the word-thing fallacy.  Words and things are not the same.  The absence of a particular term does not entail the absence of a particular concept.  For example, Genesis 3 does not contain any of the standard Hebrew terms for sin or transgression, but the concept is obviously there.  Consider also that Psalm 89:3 (cf. vv. 28, 34, 39) refers back to 2 Samuel 7 as a covenant involving an oath, even though 2 Samuel did not use that terminology.  So it is with Hosea 6:7, where Hosea says of his generation that “like Adam they transgressed the covenant.”  Similarly, Isaiah 24:5 says: “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.”  Furthermore, William Dumbrell argues that heqim + berith in Genesis 6:18 and 9:9ff implies a pre-existing covenant (Creation and Covenant, p. 26).

The second objection is reductionistic, incorrectly defining the word covenant.  Explicit oaths and ratification ceremonies are sometimes included in covenants, but not always.  The promise of a lasting priesthood to Phineas and his descendants is called a covenant (Numbers 25:12-13).  Marriage is called a covenant (Proverbs 2:17; Malachi 2:14).  David and Jonathan’s arrangement with each other is called a covenant (1 Samuel 18:3; cf. 20:8; 23:18; Psalm 55:20).

What then is a covenant?

Gordon Hugenberger defines covenant as “an elective, as opposed to natural, [family-like] relationship of obligation established under divine sanction.”  He sees five necessary elements of a covenant—(1) two parties, one of who is also the divine witness; (2) historical prologue of past benefactions; (3) stipulations; (4) sanctions; (5) a ratifying oath/oath-sign—and argues that all five are present in Genesis 1-3.  A simpler definition—which is complementary to Hugenberger’s—is proposed by Ligon Duncan: “A covenant is a binding relationship with blessing and obligations.”  On either definition, it is clear that God and Adam were in covenant with each other, and the parallels between Christ and Adam in Romans 5 confirm this.

Was there a probationary period?

A probationary period is another way of referring to a time of testing that is not perpetual.  Genesis 3 does not use terms like “probation” or “testing”—but again, we must be careful not to commit the word-thing fallacy.  It is obvious that Job was tested by God and that Jesus was tested when he was thrust into the wilderness by the Spirit—but no terms of testing are used to describe those situations.

The alternative to denying a probationary period is to believe that Adam would remain in his current state for all eternity, assuming that he did not transgress the command of eating from the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  But I don’t think this makes a great deal of sense.

First of all, it would imply that the fall would remain a perpetual possibility for all eternity.  Augustine helpfully distinguished between posse non pecarre (able to not sin) and non posse non peccare (not able not to sin).  Adam had the former (he had the ability to refrain from sin), but he didn’t have the latter (the inability to sin).  Obviously the latter is a greater form of contentment and enjoyment and security in the presence of God.  This is what our glorification will entail: we will be in the presence of God in the new heavens and new earth without the possibility of sin.  But it makes no sense to me to imagine that such was an impossibility for Adam.

Secondly, the idea of a perpetual probation does not fit well with Adam’s representative role.  The future of man’s relationship with God hung on whether or not Adam obeyed.  But if there was never a terminus to the testing, then Adam and his posterity would always be dependent upon Adam’s obedience.  I think absurdities start to happen if we think along those lines.  What if Adam’s great-great-great grandson sinned?  Would the whole world be plunged into sin?  It seems so, but that would deny Adam’s representative role.

Finally, Paul’s parallelism of Adam and Christ suggests a limited probationary period.  Christ’s obedience to his Father was tested.  He passed, and was “declared to the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4).  If Christ was tested and the duration of the test was for a limited time, this suggests that Adam was tested for a limited time as well.

In short, I can think of no good reason to deny a probationary period for Adam.  When the whole of redemptive history is considered, I believe that we must understand Adam as having been in a probationary period.

How long was the probationary period to be?

We have no way of knowing.  Because the fall was ordained, the biblical authors have no interest in asking that question.  But as I indicated above, I don’t think it’s possible that it was to be eternal.

Was there a blessing offered for Adam’s obedience?

Yes.  I believe that glorification, symbolized by the tree of life, would be the result of Adam’s obedience.  While I don’t think that Adam and Eve ate from this tree, I don’t think that believing that they did eat from it would necessarily compromise belief in the creation covenant.

Why don’t you think that Adam and Eve ate of that tree before the Fall?

Because I don’t believe there is any textual warrant for that conclusion. And I believe it has theological problems.

Both trees were placed in the middle of the garden (Genesis 2:9).  Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—the probationary tree—entailed eternal banishment away from God.  Eating of the tree of life—the sacramental tree—entailed eternal life in God’s presence.  One tree corresponded to the explicit warning: “Eat and die.”  The other tree corresponded to the implicit promise: “Eat and live.”

Yahweh told Adam and Eve, “You may eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).  There’s no debate that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden and that they did not eat from it prior to the fall.  But many scholars assume that therefore they did eat from the tree of life.  But the text doesn’t tell us either way.  We have to draw an inference from all of the evidence.

First, the text does not indicate that Adam and Eve knew the name or the meaning of the “tree of life.”

Second, I see no reason necessitating that they ate from the tree.  Again, the text does not say that they did.  I tend to think that the fall happened right away, since we have no reason to think otherwise from the way that the narrative reads, coupled with the fact that Eve was not pregnant (despite perfect fertility and perfect obedience to the command to be fruitful and multiply!).  Given all the trees in the garden and the limited amount of time, I see no reason why Adam and Eve would necessarily have had to partake of the tree of life.

Third, we’ll have to make a determination about the nature of the tree and what it symbolized.  Notice what Yahweh says immediately after the fall: “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.  Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—therefore God sent him out of the garden of Eden” (Genesis 3:22-23).  The act of eating from the tree of life meant living forever.  This cannot refer to the immortality of the soul.  That was not at stake, for Adam (and all of his posterity) would live forever anyway (either in heaven or hell).  Rather, it refers to living forever in the state that one is in.  I believe therefore that after the fall God graciously prevented Adam from eating of this tree so that Adam would not be eternally confirmed in this state of sinfulness.  Conversely, eating of the tree pre-fall would have meant a confirmation in the state of sinlessness.

My argument is simple: (1) the tree of life was a sacrament that confirmed one’s state; (2) Adam’s state of sinless fellowship with God was mutable and thus unconfirmed; (3) therefore he did not partake of the tree of life.  Note the word “also” (gam) in Genesis 3:22: “Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”  This suggests that Adam had not yet taken and eaten of the tree of life.  With reference to the tree of life, the book of Revelation tells us that it is only for those who “overcome” (Revelation 2:7).  Reasoning typologically, we are led to believe that since Adam did not overcome, he did not eat of the tree.

But didn’t God grant them permission to eat from all of the trees in the Garden?

Yes he did.  But here I would distinguish between God’s secret will and his revealed will.  God’s public declaration of his moral will does not always coincide with the hidden counsels of his will.  (For example, his revealed will is “thou shalt not murder,” but his decretive will was that Jesus was to be put to death).  If my analysis of the role of the tree is on track, then God publicly granted permission for Adam to eat from the tree, but sovereignly saw to it that they did not eat from it.

Was there grace in the covenant with Adam?

Most Reformed writers have assumed that the answer to this is yes—for example, John Owen, Herman Bavinck, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, A. A. Hodge, Geerhardus Vos, James Henley Thornwell, and John Murray all argued for the gracious character of the covenant with Adam.

The question is how we are using the term grace.  As it is used throughout the Bible, grace often has to do with unmerited divine favor which overcomes sin and is applied to sinners.  God the Father does not give grace—in this sense—to the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the angels.  He only gives this kind of grace to sinners.  So one could argue that because pre-fall Adam was not a sinner, God did not give him grace.  That would be a sound and true argument I believe.

On the other hand, God provided for all of Adam’s needs and manifested his goodness in Adam’s life.  Adam obviously did not “deserve” to be created.  Since these ideas are also associated with “grace,” it may legitimate to apply the term to the pre-fall covenantal relationship with Adam.

In my view, some in the Reformed camp have become linguistic legalists, wrangling over words rather than sufficiently dialoguing over concepts.  To be fair, though, I believe critics often make the same mistake, critiquing before they truly understand the terms and intentions of the covenant theologians.

Due to potential misunderstanding, I think it is generally best to avoid the term “grace” when discussing the pre-fall covenant with Adam.  I would rather speak of God’s freedom, goodness, and enablement with regard to Adam.

Was Adam to obey in his own strength?

This is one of the unfortunate connotations of the label “covenant of works.”  Many modern evangelicals understand “works” to be “work righteousness” and hence legalistic striving in one’s own strength.  But this is neither the teaching of the Bible nor the teaching of Reformed theologians on this issue.  For example, Francis Turretin wrote: “Man can bring nothing to it from himself, but depends wholly upon God (as to both the promised good and the enjoined duty, to perform which God furnishes  him with the power).”  Although God created Adam with the power to obey, he “still needed the help of God both to actuate these faculties and powers and to preserve them from change.”  Therefore, there was no debt (properly so called) from which man could derive a right, but only a debt of fidelity, arising out of the promise by which God demonstrated his infallible and immutable constancy and truth” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 577, 578).

Was Adam to exercise faith?

Yes, in the sense that he was to trust God as his treasure. But not quite in the sense that Paul calls for faith.  Paul does not call upon us just to have a general trust in God to provide for all our needs, but also to have a specific trust in Christ to provide for our greatest need: atonement for our sins.  Adam needed to trust God to provide for all his needs (which obviously didn’t include the righteousness of another).

If Adam had obeyed, would he have merited the blessing of eternal life?

This is a complicated, nuanced question with much historical discussion behind it. The most important thing to note is that “merit,” at least as it is used by careful Reformed theologians, does not imply autonomy or libertarian free will.  As I understand it, the main use of the term is to denote obligation.  God (implicitly) promised Adam eternal life if he obeyed.  Therefore, God was covenantally obligated to grant eternal life to Adam if he had obeyed.  We know this because God was covenantally obligated to raise Christ from the dead, declaring him the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4).  Christ fulfilled the required conditions, and therefore God in his justice gave him his due reward.  The same would have been true of Adam.  God’s sustaining and empowering them does not negate his rewarding them in his justice, for it is still their obedience (and not another’s) that meets the conditions God required.  In my view, the most important thing to avoid is the implication that it was possible for the federal head to fulfill his covenantal conditions through obedience and yet God not provide the promised reward.  This concept is more important than the terms employed.

Some Seminars on Homosexuality, Change, and the Gospel

Because of recent news the issue of homosexuality is on the front page again.

I thought it might be helpful to pull together a few resources by gifted brothers that can equip us to think through some of the key issues.

A couple of years ago Matt Chandler did an hour and a half of teaching, followed by 40 minutes or so of answering questions from the audience, on this subject. This is tough to handle well. Some pastors harp on this issue in a disproportionate, condemnatory way. Others, swinging the pendulum in the other direction, don’t want to appear insensitive or right-wing and thus avoid it altogether. So it takes courage to tackle it head-on without being a jerk.

In the first video below Chandler begins by tracing the biblical storyline. In the second video, he gives some basic responses to several street-level objections, like:

1. If you’re not hurting anyone else, what’s wrong with it?

2. Since you’re a sinner, too, who are you to call out others?

3. Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.

4. Some animals have same-sex relations, so if it’s in nature it must natural.

5. The homosexuality condemned by Paul is a different type of homosexuality than we see today.

6. Revisionist arguments from modern scholarship.

He also talks about the way in which he seeks to engage in dialogue with homosexuals in a gospel-centered way.

In the third video he fields questions via text message—e.g., on how parents should handle their adult kids who are gay with partners coming to visit.

You can listen to the whole audio below or download it:

Or you can watch it via video:

If you’re looking for a good resource on thinking about the arguments for homosexuality—especially exegetical ones—the best authority to consult is Professor Robert Gagnon. His book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is the standard in the field.

You can go here to order a set of DVDs—plus a bonus audio CD—for $35. You can watch a half hour clip below, though you’ll want to skip the introduction and go to 1:45 to hear Gagnon start talking.

Here’s a summary of the DVDs:

DVD 1: What’s at Stake & What Are the Closest Analogies (83 min.)

Treats why we disagree in the church about homosexual practice; what’s at stake in this debate; why the oft-cited, alleged analogies to Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage are not in fact good analogies to the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice; what the main problem with homosexual practice is; why adult-committed incest and polyamory are the closest analogies; and responses to audience questions.

DVD 2: The Witness of Paul on Homosexual Practice (72 min.)

Treats the witness of Paul, showing how Paul opposed homosexual practice absolutely by looking at: echoes to the creation texts in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9; the meaning of Paul’s argument from nature in its historical context; the case for identifying Rom 1:26 with an indictment of lesbianism; the conception of caring homosexual unions in the ancient world; the condemnation of even such caring unions by some Greek and Roman moralists; and the case for identifying the terms for homosexual practice in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1;10 with homosexual practice per se.

DVD 3: The Witness of Jesus & the OT on Homosexual Practice (76 min.)

The first 11 minutes completes the discussion of Paul by showing why the “orientation argument” (i.e. had NT authors known about sexual orientation it would have changed their view on homosexual practice) doesn’t work. The next 19 min. are devoted to discussing the witness of Jesus; 8 min. to the witness of Genesis; 7 min. to Sodom and related texts (Ham & Noah, the sacred cult prostitute texts, Levite at Gibeah, commentary on Sodom in Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Pet); 5 min. to the Levitical prohibitions and the problems with alleged analogies to menstrual law and cloth mixtures; 2 min. to David and Jonathan; and 23 min. to responding to questions from the audience.

CD: The Importance of Sexual Ethics in the NT (72 min.)

The lecture below by Professor Sam Williams (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is not an exploration of or defense of interpreting the Bible with regard to homosexuality (for that, see Gagnon above). Professor Williams assumes the biblical perspective in this lecture. Rather, he answers questions like:

What causes homosexuality?
Can we be responsible for that which is not consciously chosen?
What is the difference between having same-same attraction, same-sex orientation, and being “gay” or “lesbian”?
How many people self-identify in these ways?
Do people with same-same attraction actually change?
How can they change?
What does the gospel have to do with this issue?
How can we promote change in the church for those who struggle?

You can listen to the audio at iTunes, though the video below is worth watching, if you can, to see a couple of the charts. You can also read the manuscript of this address.

For more on some of the social-science research see Mark Yarhouse’s summary paper, “At the Intersection of Religious and Sexual Identities: A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality.”

The Sermon He Would Have Preached at His Wife’s Memorial Service

R.C. Sproul Jr.:

Though it was a close call, I elected not to preach at my dear wife’s memorial service. Wasn’t sure I could get through it. But in God’s good grace I was given a second chance, the opportunity to preach to many who knew and loved her. My friends at Boerne Christian Assembly in San Antonio offered me their pulpit one February Lord’s Day, and positively encouraged me to preach on the things I had learned during Denise’s battle, and after her victory. Though it was a close call, I made it through. And in God’s grace that sermon, The Mountain of the Brilliance of Life, was recorded. I have been deeply encouraged by those who have been reading my pieces through various internet outlets about our journey, who have let me know how they have been encouraged. My prayer is that this sermon would encourage still more, that we would all remember that our heavenly Father loves us, and that Jesus will never leave nor forsake us.

A Different Kind of Mother’s Day Gift

 

The statistics on human trafficking are both stomach-turning and mind-numbing. According to the UN, it’s now a $32 billion annual business.

Consider India. There, in just one city, it’s a billion-dollar-a-year business. Little girls—some as young as 7 or 8 years old—are being forced into the sex trade. It’s estimated that 30,000 minor girls are trafficked annually—82 girls per day. India also has 25.7 million orphans at risk of exploitation.

The problem is massive. But it feels distant. Resistance seems almost futile. It’s easy to slide from the reality of “I cannot change this” to the attitude of “I can do nothing.”

Traditional adoption is difficult (at best) in India. So that significantly raises the stakes for orphan-care within India itself.

I’m intrigued by the work being done by As Our Own. They are “a Christ-based, community-driven movement in India that rescues vulnerable children from certain enslavement and exploitation, caring for them as our own.”

These girls are welcomed into their new families within India.  They never graduate out of the program. They are loved and parented, given the crucial support system they need, including schooling, career preparation, marriage and family, and beyond.

So what does this have to do with Mother’s Day—with your mother, or the mother of your children?

As Our Own has initiated a new campaign where you can make a donation in honor of your mother or spouse. By doing so, you’ll be supporting young girls in India who have been rescued and who will (Lord willing) grow up to be mothers themselves.

Follow this link to donate. When you do, they’ll e-mail you a printable card where you can fill in her name and that explains the gift you’ve made in her name.

Our small gifts can make a big difference, honoring our moms and serving future moms on the other side of the world.

A Proposed Compromise on the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

This proposal—a rapprochement of sorts between the revisionists and the traditionalists—was first offered in 2009 by Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis. It is unlikely to happen, but I think it’s an interesting idea to have on the table. An excerpt:

The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law.

In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits.

But, as Princeton’s Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival “marriage-lite” option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions’ goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

This proposal will, no doubt, meet with resistance on both sides of the marriage divide.

Traditionalists will regret any move that appears to capitulate on the distinctiveness of marital relationships by granting same-sex couplings similar status, even if we would make recognition available to presumptively non-sexual relationships to avoid equating gay unions with marriage. (We ourselves do not favor civil-union schemes of any type, but we are prepared to accept them as part of an honorable compromise among reasonable people of goodwill.)

At the same time, revisionists will have to compromise by supporting DOMA, the current Clinton-era federal law that retains a traditional definition of marriage for federal purposes while leaving each state free to define marriage as it sees fit, regardless of what other states do.

But we believe that for both sides, the benefits could outweigh the drawbacks.

First, this approach would avoid the hornet’s nest of church-state issues engaged by the Rauch-Blankenhorn proposal. Since neither the presumption nor the legal possibility of sex would be a condition for recognition, homosexual activity would not be incentivized or institutionally normalized. Thus, traditional religious communities would not have to rule out support for our proposal as an implicit endorsement of homosexual activity. And with renewed support for DOMA, they would be free not to promote or treat same-sex unions as marriages. As a result, no special religious-conscience protections would be necessary.

For traditionalists, though, there is another worry. Two state courts have already used existing state civil-union laws as part of their rationale for insisting that the legislature enact same-sex ‘marriage,’ on the ground that “separate but equal” institutions are unjust. If, under the Rauch-Blankenhorn proposal, we enacted same-sex civil unions identical in their structure and purposes to marriage, courts could again use these as a steppingstone to same-sex ‘marriage.’ The benefit of our proposal is that it avoids this possible breach of the compromise by reaffirming DOMA and establishing civil unions that differ in substance, not only in name, from marriages.

Our proposal would still meet the needs of same-sex partners—based not on sex (which is irrelevant to their relationship’s social value), but on shared domestic responsibilities, which really can ground mutual obligations. It would provide a practical compromise that need not offend either side’s nonnegotiable principles. And it would lower the emotional temperature without chilling debate, which would continue at the state level, perhaps now more fruitfully.

Is Genesis 1-3 Literal? Historical? Poetical?

The PCA’s Report of the Creation Study Committee makes this important observation: “In order to be clear about where we agree and where we disagree, we must first be clear on just what we mean by the words we use. A number of terms appear in discussions of Genesis 1—3, and the various parties may actually mean different things by them. A theme running through this discussion is the problem created by there being several meanings available for these terms, and we must decide which sense of the word is relevant to our discussion.

Here are a few of the words that they tackle in their report:

Literal

As Protestants we say we believe in the importance of the “literal” interpretation of a passage. But what do we mean by that? The term comes out of medieval discussions of the various meanings of a text, such as the “literal,” the “anagogical,” the “allegorical,” and so on. The Reformers stressed the “literal” meaning as the one of primary interest. In this context they meant that we ought to care about the meaning the author intended; we should ask, “what would a competent reader from the original audience have gotten from this text?” Now, it is important to recognize that this puts no requirements on us, say, for excluding such things as figurative descriptions, anthropomorphisms, exaggerations, and so on: instead we try to follow the conventions of the particular literary form we are studying.

We must make this proviso because there are other meanings of the word “literal” that can confuse us. For example, often when we say “take a statement literally” we mean that we take it in its most physical terms, without allowance for figures of speech such as metaphor. This is the “literalistic interpretation,” and we owe it no loyalty at all. We find literalism of this kind amusing if our children apply it to idioms such as “raining cats and dogs,” and we find it frustrating when we are discussing the meaning of “all” in Romans 5:18. It is not difficult to marshal exegetical arguments to suggest that by the word “all” in Romans 5:18 Paul meant “all those represented by the respective covenant head,” and we may legitimately claim that this is in fact the intended or properly “literal” meaning. This helps us to see that the properly literal meaning of a text need not be the same as the meaning that lies on the surface.

What does this mean for our interpretation of Genesis 1—3? Quite simply, it keeps our attention on the communication act between Moses and the generation of Israelites he led into the Sinai desert. That is, part of the argument in favor of our interpretation should be its relevance and intelligibility to competent readers from the original audience. This will also have a bearing on the validity of some kinds of harmonization.

Historical

In ordinary language, when we say that an account is “historical” we mean that it is a record of something the author wants us to believe actually happened in the space-time world. There is no question but that the Genesis 1 account should be taken as being “historical” in this sense: after all, this is how every Biblical author who refers back to it treats it (e.g. Exod 20:11; Heb 11:3; Rev 4:11; Isa 40:26; Jonah 1:9). Again, we must be careful to understand what that does and does not say. This does not decide ahead of time such things as whether the manner of description is free from “figurative elements” (i.e. that the account demands what we have called a “literalistic interpretation”), or whether the account is complete in detail, or whether things must be narrated in the order in which they occurred (unless the author himself tells us).

We have no difficulty in harmonizing the Gospel accounts by allowing that the different authors may have grouped things by logical rather than chronological reasons; and this does not take away in the least from their “historicity” (nor does a properly “literal” interpretation require anything else from us).

Confessional Presbyterians have not hesitated to affirm, not only that the narrative of Genesis 1—3 claims historicity for itself, but also that it is in fact historically true, and thus worthy of our belief.

Poetical

In popular speech we tend to contrast the “poetical” with the “historical” (or “factual”), as well as with the “literal,” because we take “poetical” to mean that it need not refer to something in the external world.

A good example of the popular definition at work comes from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter “A conspiracy unmasked.” Merry and Pippin have just sung a song whose refrain is, “We must away! We must away! We ride before the break of day!” In response Frodo says, “Very good! But in that case there are a lot of things to do before we go to bed. . .” To this Pippin replies, “Oh! That was poetry! Do you really mean to start before the break of day?”[139]

On the other hand, at the literary and linguistic level, the focus is on the kind of language and literary style: there may be rhythm; but especially there will be imaginative descriptions and attempts to enable the reader to feel what it was like to be there. Quite often the language is harder to process than ordinary prose; it may be repetitive or allusive. These linguistic features reflect the different communicative purposes of poetic language: e.g. to celebrate something special, to mourn over it, to enjoy the re-telling, to enable the audience to see things differently. To call something “poetical” in this way is not of itself to deny its historicity, for example (consider Judges 5; Psalm 105; 106).

Some have referred to the language of Genesis 1:1—2:3 as “poetical,” and they may in fact mean poetical in the linguistic and literary sense; however, many people hear that as a denial of its historical truth value, because they interpret the statement in light of the popular definition. As a matter of linguistic detail it is probably not strictly correct to call the language of this passage “poetical” anyhow. A better term would be “exalted prose narrative”: this captures the feeling of celebration that competent Hebrew readers find in the narrative, and the highly patterned use of language, while at the same time it keeps our eyes on the fact that at the grammatical level we have a narrative.

You can read the whole document here.

5 Recommended Books on Preaching

Here are the books that John Piper assigns for his class “Preaching as Worship: The Wonder and Work of Expository Exultation” at Bethlehem College & Seminary:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, Deluxe, 40th Anniversary Edition (Zondervan, 2011). This classic 1972 text has now been republished with essays from Bryan Chapell, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, and John Piper.

You can read here the first chapter along with Duncan’s essay on things to look for when you read it.

Keller: “It is one of the most important books on preaching in print. I personally owe it a debt I can never repay.” Dever: “This book—and indeed Lloyd-Jones’ preaching (which this book so well introduces)—is one of the main shapers of my own understanding of preaching.” DeYoung: “I know of no other book on preaching that will motivate you to preach like this one will. Read Lloyd-Jones again, or for the first time, and you may just discover there’s Spirit-given life left in your dry bones.”

John Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (Eerdmans, 1982).

You can view the Google Preview here.

Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Banner of Truth).

Joel Beeke has a good summary commendation: “Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students is invaluable for its practical advice. Coming from a veteran pastor, with hundreds of insights gleaned from careful reflection on his experiences, Spurgeon’s book is a classic. Not every chapter is of uniform value, but nearly every chapter contains most helpful advice found nowhere else. It is also very readable, down-to-earth, realistic, and yet spiritual and uplifting. No false piety here!” You can read the introduction and part of the first chapter here.

John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, rev. ed. (Baker, 2004).

Phil Ryken: “The Supremacy of God in Preaching is one of the few truly indispensable books on gospel ministry.”

Erwin Lutzer: “Here’s a book that every preacher should read at least once a year. This book is a powerful antidote to the unbalanced, self-centered preaching of today.”

Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (IVP, 2000).

You can view the Google Preview here.

This book helped to move Piper’s preaching in a more explicitly Christ-centered direction.

Voters in North Carolina Did Not Vote Today on Banning Gay Marriage

According to reports, North Carolina voters today decided to ban gay marriage.

But Ryan T. Anderson objects to how this is being framed:

How we talk about an issue affects how we think about it. . . . Today’s vote in North Carolina is not about banning anything. Nothing will be made illegal as a result. In all fifty states across the nation two people of the same sex can live together, have their religious community bless their union, and have their workplace offer them various joint benefits—if the religious communities and workplaces in question so desire. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses have voluntarily decided to do so. There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s no ban on it.

What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such unions as marriages—and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. This isn’t the legalization of something, this is the coercion and compulsion of others to recognize and affirm same-sex unions as marriages. . . .

The same-sex marriage debate is so frequently framed in terms of granting gays and lesbians the freedom to do what they wish that few people realize that they already have that freedom—the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage. Public discourse needs to more carefully reflect the issues at stake. . . .

Voters in North Carolina today are not voting to ban anything. They are voting to define what marriage is. They are voting to protect the union of a man and woman as something unique and irreplaceably important.

You can read the whole thing here, including interaction with Vice President Biden’s defense of gay marriage.