What I Learned From the da Vici Code

I never realized until reading The da Vinci Code that the Dead Sea Scrolls are early Christian writings like the Nag Hammadi library deliberately suppressed by the church.

Jaroslav Pelikan

Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor of History at Yale University died this past weekend of lung cancer. Dr. Pelikan was one of the most significant scholars writing on church history. Among his many works, his five volume masterpiece, The Christian Tradition, is a must read for anyone studying the history of doctrine. His work Jesus Through the Centuries is likewise a masterful blending of history, art and doctrine; and is a valuable resource in tracing the development of the church and culture's perception and reaction to the person of Jesus.

The clear and insightful thinking and writing of Dr. Pelikan is a quality that will be sorely missed in the field of church history; but the contributions Dr. Pelikan has made to the discipline will be appreciated and utilized for generations to come.

More Thoughts on Church Discipline

I do plan on getting back to some thoughts about Dr. Enns’ book soon, but this topic has really been on my mind a lot lately. I hope to blog a little more regularly since getting a laptop computer; but I know I have said that in the past, and you know happened with similar intention. But wireless internet, and computing mobility are great aids to computing diligence.

I have been thinking a little more on the elder and session’s responsibility with regard to church discipline.

The first thought is that discipline epitomizes the special responsibility of an elder. This does not mean that the elder is supposed to seek whom he may file charges against; but that it is his special interest to guide and guard the believer’s growth in grace. In my last post, I mentioned the analogy between the rule of the elder’s household and his rule of the flock entrusted to him. A father not only seeks to correct a child when they are in sin, but also to instill the necessary experience and maturity to avoid sin in the first place. Scripture is clear that the elder must be diligent to guard and to protect the flock. To cite just one passage making this clear, Paul writes to Titus concerning an elder, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus1:9). It is clear from the rest of the letter that an elder’s task involves not only doctrine, but also life. The OPC’s Form of Government defines the task of an elder with regard to discipline in the following manner:

Ruling elders, individually and jointly with the pastor in the session, are to lead the church in the service of Christ. They are to watch diligently over the people committed to their charge to prevent corruption of doctrine or morals. Evils which they cannot correct by private admonition they should bring to the notice of the session. They should visit the people, especially the sick, instruct the ignorant, comfort the mourning, and nourish and guard the children of the covenant. They should pray with and for the people. They should have particular concern for the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word and help him in his labors. (X:3)

Failure with regard to church discipline is failure in the intent and special vocation of an elder.

Second, the identity and the purity of the church demand that elders diligently attend to discipline as a vital aspect of their work. Reformed churches, following the Belgic Confession have identified the three marks of a true church as the faithful proclamation of the Word, the pure administration of the Sacraments and the diligent exercise of church discipline. And while it is necessary to recognize that no church is faultless in any of these three areas, imperfection is not an excuse to abandon semper reformada. These three areas stand together, and failure in one will in time effect the others. No church should ever claim its purity by appealing to faithfulness in one or two of these areas while excusing the neglect in the other. Purity of doctrine is meaningless unless that pure doctrine filters through to the thoughts and life of the congregation.

Third, neglect of church discipline hinders the exercise of future discipline. Especially regarding public sins, the neglect of serious and decisive disciplinary action by a session causes the congregation to lower its esteem for the session, even if this is not explicitly expressed. It is a given that at times the process of formal discipline necessarily takes time, but it there is a distinction between care and neglect- and a congregation is able to discern the difference. When a session is negligent concerning confronting a sin and taking necessary actions, its call to repentance for another member caught in the same or a similar sin becomes hollow. In order to counteract this negative response, the session should repent and seek the church’s forgiveness concerning its past failures- while publicly committing itself, by the grace of God, to be diligent and faithful to its God-given responsibility in the future.

Thoughts on (Church) Discipline

In his book "Handbook of Church Discipline" Jay Adams writes that church discipline begins because of a breakdown of self-discipline. The intervention of another, whether the informal rebuke of a brother or sister, or the formal, judicial process of the church leadership seeks to remedy what is lacking in the individual's self-discipline. It also seems apparent that the initial lack of self-discipline which necessitates the discipline process tends to be relatively "small" sins. Adultery, for example, is rarely, if ever, the initial sin requiring disciplinary action; but is preceded by a long string of "smaller" sins which culminate in the more serious sin. Yet, the sad irony is that the "smaller" sins are those that are generally overlooked, or are not thought to require serious disciplinary disciplinary action, formal or informal. A few observations suggest themselves.

First, great humility and diligence are required with regard to our sanctification. We are too prone to overestimate our own strength, or the strength of others, while easily overlooking those areas which speak powerfully of weakness. "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."

Second, we must be humble enough to give and to receive loving, yet firm rebuke in any areas where there is a discontinuity between the mandates of Scripture and practice. A Scriptural rebuke given in a timely manner may very well save a brother or sister a great deal of the pain and hardship that sin will bring to God's child. Even more, in God's providence, this early rebuke may be the means that God will use to save a soul from the damning hardness of continued, ingrained sin.

Third, elders must be diligent in their care of the flock Christ has entrusted to them. The final steps of church discipline is generally exercised in cases where there is gross sin; yet any sin, which fails to be renounced despite Scriptural rebuke and ministerial authority calls for sessional action. What elder would fail to deal with the "white lies" or the tantrums of their children, excusing themselves by saying it is not worth the effort, or the sins are not substantial enough to require parental discipline? The manner in which an elder rules his house is not only a qualification for his office, but also an analogy.

"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

A Tax Rant

Allow me a slight break from my normal fare to vent a little. No, I am not going to join some hyper-conservatives and question the constitutionality of the income tax, or whine about the loopholes in the system favoring the rich. In fact, I don’t even have a beef with the IRS, I am sort of happy with them right now.

My major goal for the day was to get my taxes completed and mailed. I know I should have gotten them done a while ago, rather than wait close to the last minute; but what can I say, I had a lot of other things to do and I procrastinated. The prospect of numbers and math does not get me very excited, even if it means I get a good deal of money at the end of the process. This morning I got the right booklet for the Federal Tax that I needed, and in the middle of the afternoon, I started the process. The directions for the Federal tax form were clear and concise, and the entire process was quick and easy. Encouraged by the ease of the Federal form, I immediately moved on to the state income tax. First, the form I was using (the short form mind you) was at four times longer than the Federal form. The large instruction book accompanying the form was anything but clear, written I am sure by a professional linguist specializing in governmentalese. Having struggled almost to the end, encouraged by the prospect of soon completing my task- New York State introduced a bump in the road. Rather than accepting the figure for the state tax withheld listed on the W-2, New York now requires another form, the IT-2 to be filled out and attached to your tax return. Of course, this form is not attached to the normal return sheet, or in the booklet. So, the end of the story is, since the library was closed which had the tax forms; I will have to finish my state taxes tomorrow, when I can get my IT-2, to record the same figure I already have on my W-2.

The Federal government made a big deal in recent years about simplifying the tax code for the average taxpayer. I think the Federal government has done well, now, it is time for New York to join the club.