Enjoying God
Tattoos and Body Piercing: What's a Christian to do?
Aug 30, 2007
On a recent broadcast at DesiringGod.org, John Piper briefly addressed the issue of tattoos and body piercing among Christians. I especially appreciated the spirit in which John took up this subject. He did not come down in a heavy-handed or judgmental fashion, insisting in some legalistic way that such actions are altogether and always a sin. He mentioned the prohibition on tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 and suggested that although there were probably unique historical and religious circumstances in the ancient near east that evoked this prohibition, we should still seek to learn from it. Whereas not everything in the Levitical code is binding on the believer today, we still must ask if there is some underlying principle in the OT prohibition that might find application to us in the present day.
But Piper mentioned two additional factors to take into consideration, to which I would like to add a third. First, he asked the all-important question that every Christian contemplating getting a tattoo or body piercing should ask: "Will this exalt the Lord Jesus Christ? Is this going to draw attention to him or to me? Will his beauty and splendor and all-sufficiency be highlighted in this action? Will the gospel itself be adorned or obscured in what I'm doing?"
Second, John also said that we should carefully monitor our motives for getting a tattoo or body piercing. In particular, he suggested that often times (not always!) people get tattoos in an effort to establish for themselves an identity that they have failed to find in Christ alone. In other words, each person needs to ask: "To what extent does this tattoo or body piercing reflect my failure to find full satisfaction in Christ alone? To what extent is this an attempt to ‘be' or ‘become' something that until know I've failed to find in who I am in Christ and because of what he has accomplished in grace on my behalf?"
It may well be that the person contemplating getting a tattoo feels fully established in Christ and is keenly aware of who they are in him, and thus the issue of identity simply does not factor into one's motivation. But it is an important matter to keep in mind.
To these excellent observations, I'd like to add a third. I think a Christian needs to ask himself/herself whether or not the tattoo or body piercing expresses respect for the human body as the temple of the living God. Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He abides in us, not in buildings or tabernacles or anything else as the unique expression of his saving and sanctifying presence. The apostle Paul makes this clear on a number of occasions (see especially 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:21-22). I think particularly of 1 Cor. 6:19-20 where Christians are exhorted to "glorify God in your body" (v. 20). I'm not saying that people with tattoos and body piercings can't glorify God in their bodies. I'm not the judge of that. I'm simply asking Christians to think and pray about it before they engage in this activity.
Needless to say (or perhaps it does need to be said), this text in 1 Corinthians 6 would apply to a number of issues other than tattoos and body piercing. I suspect that many reading this article are guilty of gluttony and have become excessively obese. This is only one example of what undoubtedly are any number of activities in which we may fail to glorify God in our bodies. We must be careful, therefore, lest we single out tattoos and body piercing and ignore the many ways in which we might potentially fail to glorify the Lord in how we treat our physical frame.
The fact is, the Bible is not as explicit and unyielding on this issue as some might like. If there were a specific and undeniable commandment in the NT that addressed the point, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. So I encourage everyone to be gracious and gentle at the same time we give full consideration to the principles set forth in God's Word. For those who've already been tattooed, perhaps the question should now be to what extent and in what ways, if any, can I turn this for the good of the gospel and the glory of God. I'm certainly not prepared (or qualified) to answer that question, but it is one that needs to be addressed.
May God grant us wisdom and patience with one another as we seek to understand how best to glorify God in our bodies.
Sam
God's there!
Aug 24, 2007
In an Associated Press release today, Friday, August 24, 2007, astronomers are reporting the discovery of what is being called a "massive blank spot in the universe." What's got them scratching their heads is "what's just not there. The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter."
We're not talking here about a small patch of sky but 1 billion light years across of "nothing". According to the article, "that's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness." "It looks like something to be taken seriously," said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer. Tully said "astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty."
Tully goes on to explain that "holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pull matter from less dense areas." Retired NASA astronomer Steve Maran said of the discovery: "This is incredibly important for something where there is nothing to it."
Well, I've got some even greater and more exhilarating news for these astronomers and scientists. They're wrong! God's there! This "place in space" may lack for stars and black holes and galaxies and all other forms of matter but the only thing that ultimately matters is wholly and powerfully and personally present in all his glory: God! He not only fills the universe he made, but transcends it. He is everywhere in it, through it, and beyond it. The most sophisticated scientific tools may not detect his presence, but he's there. Simply put: space is God!
"Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord" (Jer. 23:24).
I'm no astronomer, but I'd like to bring a word of correction to these learned men. There's no such thing as a "void" or "blank spot" or an "empty" place in space. Our great and glorious Triune God, Father, Son, and Spirit, fills the universe. Though bereft of meteors and moons and matter, our majestic and all-powerful God is there, and everywhere!
"How terrible should the thoughts of this attribute be to sinners," wrote Stephen Charnock. "How foolish is it to imagine any hiding-place from the incomprehensible God, who fills and contains all things, and is present in every point of the world. When men have shut the door, and made all darkness within, to meditate or commit a crime, they cannot in the most intricate recesses be sheltered from the presence of God. If they could separate themselves from their own shadows, they could not avoid his company, or be obscured from his sight. . . . Hypocrites cannot disguise their sentiments from him; he is in the most secret nook of their hearts. No thought is hid, no lust is secret, but the eye of God beholds this, and that, and the other. He is present with our heart when we imagine, with our hands when we act. We may exclude the sun from peeping into our solitudes, but not the eyes of God from beholding our actions" (174).
Charles Spurgeon also reminds us that "this (truth) makes it dreadful work to sin; for we offend the Almighty to His face, and commit acts of treason at the very foot of His throne. Go from Him, or flee from Him we cannot; neither by patient travel nor by hasty flight can we withdraw from the all-surrounding Deity. His mind is in our mind; Himself within ourselves. His spirit is over our spirit; our presence is ever in His presence" (3:260).
Astronomers of the world, by all means scratch your heads in bewilderment and marvel at the greatness of your discovery. Applaud the achievements of science and write your scholarly accounts. But before, while, and after you do, fall prostrate before the God who fills the universe and worship, for "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Ps. 19:1).
Mark Dever and "occasional communion"
Aug 22, 2007If you haven't yet read Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (B & H Academic), you are missing out on what is, in my opinion, the finest and most persuasive case for credo-baptism yet written. One need not agree with every point of interpretation in this book to recognize the remarkable accomplishment of these authors (contributing to the book, in addition to the editors, are Andreas Kostenberger, Robert Stein, Stephen Wellum [his chapter on "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants" is alone worth the price of the book], Steven McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever).
I mention this book not only to encourage you to read it but also because of the excellent chapter by Mark Dever concerning how baptism is practiced in the context of the local church. One thing you can be assured of, Mark is never boring! His insights are penetrating and, most of the time, persuasive. When one hears that we evangelicals lack a credible ecclesiology, I immediately point to Mark Dever and his voluminous writings on the subject. No one is more serious about the centrality of the local church in God's kingdom purposes than is Mark. I highly recommend all his books on the subject. No, you won't agree with him on every point, but you will be challenged, instructed, and encouraged in a way that I find rare in the evangelical world today.
One of the issues addressed in this chapter concerns who should be granted access to the Lord's Table, a subject that has been circulating the evangelical blogosphere of late. I wrote a few days ago of my concern that some, such as Mark, would close the Table to those Christians who had not been baptized as believers but had only experienced "evangelical infant baptism" (the latter are Mark's words). Mark believes that the failure to obey Christ's call to be baptized "calls into question the claim of being Christ's follower (since Christ commanded baptism in Matt 28:19-20). Even if the disobedience is unintentional (as in the case of an evangelical infant baptism), it is still sin and cannot be countenanced by the church" (340).
My purpose here isn't to address whether or not we should regard conscientious paedo-baptists as "disobedient" and guilty of "sin" for not being baptized following faith in Christ. I happen to agree with those who argue that paedo-baptists are "wrong" about baptism, but not disobedient. But that's a subject for another time, another article.
I here only want to mention a comment in a footnote in Mark's chapter (341, n. 16). One response to my article (at the blog of Adrian Warnock) was that whereas Mark opposes the unbaptized "coming regularly to the Lord's table" (341; emphasis mine), he does leave open the possibility of what he calls "occasional communion" (emphasis mine) by those who have not been baptized as believers.
Is this "concession" to "occasional communion" a significant one? Here is what I wrote in my response to the person who brought this to my attention at Warnock's blog. Notwithstanding this brief reference in the chapter of this book, both Mark and Al Mohler were quite clear in their public comments at the T4G forum that a paedo-baptist would not be permitted to participate in the Lord's Table at their churches. You rightly point out that the footnote in Mark's article appears to suggest that he might allow "occasional" participation by a paedo-baptist.
But this creates problems of its own. What constitutes "occasional"? Once? If once, then why not twice? If twice, then why not three times? Who draws the line and on what basis? It quickly becomes rather arbitrary, does it not?
It seems to me that if a paedo-baptist is EVER disqualified from the table (simply for being a paedo-baptist), he/she is ALWAYS disqualified from the table. Whatever it is that makes their subsequent and repeated presence at the Table unbiblical and wrong would make their initial and even "occasional" presence unbiblical and wrong.
What do you propose be said to a paedo-baptist who has been granted access to the table once or twice and then comes a third time? "I'm sorry, sir/madam, but although we didn't regard your convictions as worthy of disqualification before, now we do. You weren't in sin by partaking of the elements before, but you are now. Furthermore, although WE weren't in sin by allowing you to partake before (on ‘occasion'), we would be in sin if we let it continue." Is this really what we glean from the NT concerning celebration of the Table?
So, my point is simply that if a paedo-baptist is welcomed by God to the Table once, he/she is welcomed by God at all times (assuming, again, that he/she is not under discipline). Otherwise you put the credo-baptist in the rather awkward (and what seems to me unbiblical) position of compromising on his/her convictions out of compassion or friendship, but only once or twice, i.e., only "occasionally", and then expecting them to do what they really believe is right and closing the table to any further participation by paedo-baptist believers.
The bottom line is this. If you believe the Bible forbids that a paedo-baptist should be granted access to the Table, then abide by your convictions. Aim for consistency. Don't try to make everyone feel better by saying, "Well, for the sake of ‘fellowship' and in order to avoid giving offence to those we regard as ‘friends,' it's o.k. this one time. And maybe we'll stretch it to twice, but after that we've got to stand firm on what we believe is biblical."
Even though I end up differing with Mark on this point, I have probably learned more from him on the nature of local church life than any other author. And I look forward to learning even more as this dialogue continues. Comments anyone?
Sam
Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord's Table, and Church Membership (just how "Together for the Gospel" are we?)
Aug 20, 2007A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem's view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John's response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin's blog in the archive section (http://www.theologica.blogspot.com/).
Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (http://www.blog.9marks.org/). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.
Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year's conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.
After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Piper's desire was to make it possible for individuals who had been baptized as infants, and believed it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized as adults, to join his church. They would not, however, be permitted to hold a leadership position as an Elder in the local body. As of today, the issue at Bethlehem has been temporarily put on hold, pending further discussion and prayer.
Now, back to Louisville. Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and John Piper each began with a brief statement concerning their view on this proposed policy. Both Dever and Mohler, who are Southern Baptists, oppose it, while Piper and Duncan support it. But my primary concern is not with this policy per se, but with what happened in the course of discussion.
Let me be clear on one thing. I am a credo-baptist, not a paedo-baptist. That is to say, I believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ should receive the ordinance of water baptism. I also believe that the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper.
Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan's paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.
As best I can tell (and I'm open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer's) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of "disobedience" and "unrepentant sin" (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord's Table.
Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I'm disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord's Table on such grounds.
I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don't know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.
This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be "Together for the Gospel" rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord's Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
Let's be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ's "presence" (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.
Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied "the forgiveness of sins" that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord's Table we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ's redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.
My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be "together" or "united" for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed "togetherness" or "unity" when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?
In effect, this is the message that is sent: "Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound to me like "together" or "united" or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.
For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, "We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save," calls into serious question the significance of the word "together".
I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.
One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: "The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord's Table. That seems a little odd." Yes, it does.
In a similar vein, another comment asked: "why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?"
Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: "If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord's Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?" The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.
In fact, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord's Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don't think it is). This would mean that Dever's Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.
In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.
Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I'd love to hear your comments.
Sam
Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views
Aug 08, 2007I received news today from Zondervan that the book, "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views", has just gone through yet another printing and that the total number of books in print is now just shy of 28,000.
For those of you not familiar with this volume, it is one of 19 in the Counterpoint Series published by Zondervan. The book was released in 1996 and continues to be perhaps the most popular and helpful volume in addressing this issue now available. What makes it so unique, as is typical of the Counterpoint Series format, is that four distinctly different perspectives are represented: Richard Gaffin defends the Cessationist View, Robert Saucy defends the Open but Cautious View, Douglas Oss articulates the Pentecostal/Charismatic View, and yours truly argues for the Third Wave View. Each of us also responds to the other three, all of which is capped off by a concluding statement from each author.
One of the unique features that went into the production of this book was the so-called Authors Conference that took place just prior to the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Philadelphia in November, 1995. The four authors, together with editor Wayne Grudem, spent two days (upwards of 18 hours total) in a hotel suite, hashing out the issues and addressing virtually every nuance of this theological debate. It was one of the most energetic and enlightening experiences in which I've ever been involved.
All this to say that if you have not yet obtained this book and worked through it, I strongly encourage you to do so. It is available directly from Zondervan, in bookstores everywhere, and also on my website, www.samstorms.com.