Something I’ve come to truly appreciate lately is that the medium is not neutral in communication. I would also extend this to the church building. Consider the sanctuary or worship center or meeting room, whatever it is called, at your church. When you walk in and sit down and engage in corporate worship, the layout of the room is not neutral. It communicates also.

What is most central in the room? I mean, what does the room point to, what are the chairs aimed at, what is not obstructed and what is? It says a lot. If there is an elevated stage, when you are worshiping you are looking up toward it. That is very much a posture of worship. What is before your eyes?

In some churches, there is a piano and drum set and microphones and guitars in that central position. The worship band is there. I’m not saying that you are worshiping the band, but what does such a configuration communicate about the significance of the worship band? When the pastor comes to preach, is he on the same level as the equipment or below it? Doesn’t that communicate something, even subconsciously?

Read On…

There has been much speculation about the scarlet cord that Rahab was told to hang from her window in Joshua 2:18. Ancient Christian interpretations take it to represent the blood for Christ. For example in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians chapter 12, it says that Rahab was told “that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God.” Or consider Augustine’s treatment in Psalm 87 where Rahab “was told to hang out of the window a line of scarlet thread, that is, to bear upon her forehead the sign of the blood of Christ. She was saved there, and thus represented the Church of the Gentiles.”

However, “typological connections of this sort must be handled with great care. Indeed, a real typological connection between the Testaments should be recognized in the light of the Bible’s own consciousness.” ¹Martin H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1981), 75. Also, we must ask if this was what the original author intended or the original audience would have heard. We must not rush to the sensus plenior ²In my opinion, the sensus plenior (or “fuller sense”) can be a valid interpretation of a text but only when used sparingly and with great care, following the New Testament example. Also, the original meaning of the should not be ignored, changed or eclipsed.before we have heard the voice of the original human author.

Read On…

A while ago, I posted a review of what is called the Federal Vision. Since then I’ve come to understand it a bit better and want to take another look at what they believe.

The Federal Vision believes that one can be “in Christ” and not be eschatologically saved. Baptism places one “in Christ” (Gal 3:27). Under the Old Covenant if the head of the household was in the covenant, his entire household was in the covenant. Male infants were circumcised not because of their faith, but because of the faithfulness of the head of the household. Likewise in the New Covenant, if the head of the house comes to faith, his household is considered to be in the covenant. Infants are baptized and therefore “in Christ”. In discussions I have had with some Federal Vision adherents they advocated baptizing unbelieving spouses provided they didn’t object. This is based on 1Co 7:14 where children are “holy” and unbelieving spouses are “made holy” because of the believer.

Read On…