10.31.2006

Creeds & Confessionalism

Over the centuries Christians of all persuasions have seen it beneficial to craft creeds and theological declarations detailing their faith. From Nicea to Westminster to the Baptist Faith & Message, confessionalism is a part of Christian orthodoxy.
This begs the question, "Why is their so much resistance to confessionalism in so much of modern evangelicalism?" Glib statements like "No creed but Christ" and "Doctrine divides, Christ unites" are proclaimed from pulpits and throughout cyberspace. In response, I'd like to pose the following questions to you brothers:
  1. Is confessionalism a healthy practice?
  2. To what extent does a congregation's particular polity factor in when crafting a creed?
  3. Should congregational churches (with the SBC in particular) adopt confessions that are more sharply focused than those endorsed by the denomination? Is this a healthy or a divisive practice?
  4. What level of confessional subscription should a local church hold its officers (elders and deacons) to in election and ordination?
  5. If you were to choose a historical confession of faith to be adopted by the congregation you serve, which one would it be and why?

I look forward to some healthy debate and discussion from you brothers.

10.25.2006

A question for everybody...

Should we be in Iraq?

Drew's Turn

Gentlemen, I (Drew) am working on a post (it'll be a zinger) to have posted by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience to a man who completely forgot the schedule he made!

10.11.2006

Augustine on Marriage

I recently read an interesting piece by Saint Augustine. While many have enjoyed his Confessions and The City of God (two literary masterpieces), he wrote on various and sundry other topics. This particular piece I read is entitled "On the Good of Marriage." In it, Augustine is apparently arguing a group of people who had been arguing against marriage. Well, I quickly discovered that Augustine had some very interesting positions with regard to marriage. At first, I found myself disagreeing with him, but after a careful reading of his positions, I think I agree with some of what he says. He makes three important points, which are the keys to his understanding of marriage and in turn of sex.

They are as follows:The purpose of marriage is the begetting of children.

He writes:

"If, therefore, even they who are united in marriage only for the purpose of begetting, for which purpose marriage was instituted..."

And, again:

"Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for the same cause of beggeting sons, and of what character so ever these may be afterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may be born in due and honest order."

So, he is arguing that marriage was made for the particular reason of begetting children. He even makes reference to the creation mandate, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Additionally, he makes a similar argument about sex in marriage. There is only one legitimate reason for sexual intercourse in marriage, that is making babies. If you are having sex in marriage without the motivation of begetting children, then you are not following God's proscribed order. While sex for other reasons (I guess he means pleasure) is not totally wrong, it is a missing of the mark in some way. It is not aiming at God's best. It is good (for it is no sin in his eyes), but it is not best (on a side note, this seems odd coming from Augustine since I think he would say that anything not focused on and aiming for God's best, no matter how good it is, is in some form sin).

He writes:

"For sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably."

Hold up, JENNA!!!! He just said that sex for pleasure is not good. Seems a tad problematic when the Bible has a book all about that, Sing of Solomon.

Ok, so far, we have two things that I strongly disagree with. This is where he saves himself. He ends with stating that marriage can build faith. Unfortunately, he doesn't go far enough. He simply says that husbands and wives need to be faithful to one another.

He writes:

"All these are goods, on account of which marriage is good: offspring, faith, sacrament."

He fails to make the connecion that marriage, by teaching us to be faithful to one another, it can teach us how to be faithful to God.

Anyway, just wanted to share with you this intriguing piece and see what you think about it.