Hold on to Your Skivvies…I Agree with Mark Driscoll

I have been, in previous posts, somewhat critical of Mark Driscoll and his tactics (and I still am critical on those grounds). However, in this post I will be in complete, 100% agreement with the quote from him which follows. It is on the subject of pastors in ministry and their responsibility to their families. Here is the quote:

“There is no office such as pastor’s wife or pastor’s children and I work very hard to ensure that our family remains our top priority over the church. Too many pastors put their ministry above their family and their wives and children get active in the church just so they can be close to their husband/daddy which is tragic. We have a normal fun family life and by God’s grace my wife and kids love Jesus, me and our church.”

I have always been of the opinion (ever since I had an opinion on this subject) that a man’s first ministry and mission field is his own family, and that they should be at the top of his list of priorities, coming even before his duties as a pastor/elder.

Steve Hays at Triablogue makes these statements among others in response to what Driscoll is saying:

i) When you marry and have kids, you acquire a prior obligation. Becoming a pastor doesn’t discharge you of this obligation. If you can’t do justice to both, either don’t enter the ministry or leave the ministry.

ii) A pastor has a higher obligation to his family than your family.

He also quotes someone named Halden who has apparently been quite critical of Driscoll’s position concerning the priority that family should take over ministry. Among other things, Halden says:

“This, to my mind, is perhaps the most clear articulation of the kind of idolatry of the family that is common among evangelical Christians in America today.”

“For my part, Driscoll’s comments are perhaps the most horrifying thing I could expect to hear from the mouth of any pastor about the priority of the family.”

I, for one, agree with Driscoll. How about you?

Answer Truthfully and Act Accordingly

Amusements are proper, both as to kind and
degree–just so far as they make us better
Christians. Whenever they become hindrances
to us in our Christian living or in our holy walk
–they are harmful, however innocent they
may be in themselves.

How do your amusements influence your
spiritual life? They may be very pleasing to you.
They may afford great gratification. But what is
their effect on you, as a Christian? Are they
hindering your love for Christ, and your growth
in grace? We ought to be honest enough with
ourselves, to answer these questions truthfully,
and then act accordingly.

-from Grace Gems, J. R. Miller, “In Green Pastures”

There is No ‘Covenant of Grace’ in the Bible

Following my post yesterday which focused on some statements from the 1689 Baptist Confession, this post looks also at a statement contained in both the Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Notice, though, the difference in how they are presented.

WCF (7.2-3a) -

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;

LBC (7.2) -

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace

Notice how the Westminster Confession appears to set up, first, a covenant of works, and then second, a covenant of grace. This appears to make the covenant of grace the same type of covenant as the covenant of works. According to the WCF, the first covenant was broken, so God set up another one which, according to Presbyterians, can also be broken. This is why I say that the WCF appears to set up both the covenant of works and covenant of grace as similar types of covenants.

Consider, though, Waldron’s remarks in his exposition of this chapter of the Baptist Confession:

‘The covenant of grace’ is in this chapter viewed as the ground of every sinner’s salvation, from the fall of Adam onward…The Bible, however, never uses the word ‘covenant’ to refer to an overarching covenant of grace which spans the whole of human history. Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the Bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the [Baptist] Confession describes as ‘the covenant of grace’. Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the fall…Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggest this terminology [covenant of grace], but no one of them ought to be equated with it. – p.107, A Modern Exposition