Modern Reformation

Modern Reformation magazine, published by the White Horse Inn, is one of the most influential theological journals in print today.

Edited by theologian Michael Horton of Westminster Theological Seminary, Modern Reformation has be instrumental in the revival of Reformed theology known as the "reformed resurgence."

Thoroughly Biblical and relentlessly conservative, MR is a bi-monthly compendium of theological articles on age-old doctrinal truths, as well as responses to current events and thoughts.

The current November/December issue features a full-length article by Pastor Matthew on the nature of hell.

Be sure to pick up the latest edition, or subscribe to this important journal today!

For ordering and subscription information for Modern Reformation, call 800.890.7556 or click here.

Book Review. J. Oswald Sanders: Spiritual Leadership

J. Oswald Sanders' book Spiritual Leadership is one of the best leadership books now available. Originally written in 1967, the later versions have been updated and thoroughly annotated by Moody Press.

In the past couple of weeks, I have been reading as much on Christian leadership as I can and I have continually found this work to be a deep well of fresh cool water.

Sanders, the former director of Overseas Missionary Fellowship, has plenty of experience from his own life to share to a new generation of pastors and leaders, but it is the way the author defers to the experiences of literally dozens of other historic personages that continually intrigued me.

As a history lover, my heart thrills with the anecdotal mini-stories of men like Luther, Spurgeon, Carey, Tyndale, Mueller, Whitefield, McCheyne and more. Reading this work was like taking a walk down the corridors of time and having multiple generations whisper timeless truths into our modern ears.

Relentlessly biblical, Sanders does not spill much ink on the frivolities that transfix most modern leadership books. Readers scanning for the cheap content of entertainment-focused, seat-filling gimmicks will be deeply disappointed. Instead the author drives the book like a spear straight for the leader's heart. In a word, the book is what the title claims to be "spiritual."

Sanders, I have come to believe, is utterly unconcerned with how many numerical followers one might accumulate. Instead, he is deeply concerned what kind of men his readers might become.

Although the work is at times a bit pithy, and the anecdotes could be filled out a bit with more description of the men he quotes and their historical settings, Sanders cannot be deterred from his goal of helping to produce men and women in leadership who are conformed more and more to the likeness of Christ.

Chapter headings include: prayer, time management, reading, improving one's skill set, and delegation. Personally, however, I found the chapters on "the cost of leadership" and "the perils of leadership" to be most profound.

Readers from every sphere of Christian leadership--the pastorate, mission field, administrator's desk, or Sunday School classroom--will all benefit from this devotional work.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

Book Review: Leaders Who Last. By Dave Kraft.

Leaders Who Last by Dave Kraft is a short, helpful book on leadership skills and strategies in a ministry context.

The author serves on the staff of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, under lead pastor Mark Driscoll. According to the foreword, Dave Kraft was able to help Driscoll significantly at certain points of his ministry, serving as his personal "ministry coach." Accordingly, I think his book will also help others who lead in ministry, although probably to a limited extent.

Regardless of what you think of the controversial Mark Driscoll (I happen to admire his ministry) the fact that Kraft served as one of his mentors is impressive: Mars Hill is an world-class behemoth of multi-site church campuses, outreach, mission, church planting, and contemporary strategy.

I approached this book thinking, "If Kraft could help Driscoll during a near burn-out phase, I am sure that he will be able to help me in my small 380-member congregation." He did. To a marginal degree.

While it will probably not become one of the enduring textbooks on leadership any time soon, Leaders Who Last does bring several of the primary facets of leadership to the fore: i.e. power, purpose, passion, priorities, and pacing. In this first major section, Kraft focuses on one's relationship with the Lord, time management (a constant challenge to all in leadership positions)and workday planning. Nothing completely original here, though.

Some of Kraft's guide-points in the latter half of the work are more valuable. For instance, his section on spending time developing future leaders and core staff rather than "draining people" (chapter 11) was helpful to me. Too, Kraft has a wise section on the importance of the pastor communicating his vision for the church (chapter 10) although Kraft does not at any point define what a "vision for the future" might look like, or provide an example of what he means by the term.

The book is filled with helpful nuggets and quotations throughout ("I have never heard of a statue in a park dedicated to a committee," p. 122. "It has been said that if you don't plan your life, someone will plan it for you," p. 136). But somehow I ended the book thinking I would rather have spent time with Dave Kraft the man, rather than Dave Kraft the author.

I am sure his wisdom would have a more profound effect on my own ministry context if I was able take the discussion out of generalities, and into more specifics!

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Fl.

The Most Dangerous Book in America: It's Not What You Might Think

The Aquila Report recently shared the incredible story of a seminary professor at a liberal theological institution who was fired for merely being in the same room when a student was given a particular book. The fact that the professor, Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, allowed the book in his classroom--and did nothing to stop it's contents from actually being read--showed tacit approval of the book's contents, the "powers that be" determined.

So they axed him. Fired him. Cut him. Terminated him.

Hopkins did not give the student the book. He didn't teach from it. He just allowed the book to be present in the liberal-leaning Interdenominational Theological Center (Atlanta).  Apparently administration would have had him to burn it on the spot.

What kind of a book could be so dangerous that its mere presence in an academic classroom would warrant a professor's termination? A book about bomb-making perhaps? Maybe a maniacal manifesto to wreak violence on campus? Child pornography?

No.

The book was Robert A.J. Gagnon's scholarly work, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

Conservative scholars deem this academic work to be the definitive book on the topic of the Old and New Testament's treatment of homosexual behavior. In the book, Gagnon, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, argues from a historical, linguistic, textual, and hermeneutical basis that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament agree that homosexuality is out of step with the complimentary design of the two human genders (male and female) and is therefore sinful.

Therein lies the great unacceptable offense: a scholar (Gagnon) has concluded--on the evidence of a plethora of Biblical research--that homosexuality is a sin.

(Also on this topic: The Bible, Homosexuality, and Shellfish). 

For many, the book may actually be a rather boring treatise. It is a technical work on the usage of ancient Greek and Hebrew words, interpretive methodology, and contextual issues in Romans 1 and other passages.

But it is the conclusion of this academic work that is so unacceptable: Gagnon concludes that homosexuality is forbidden as a sin, as a simple reading of the relevant Scriptural texts that he exegetes make clear enough.

It cost Hopkins his job for allowing this book to exist in his classroom. Apparently he should have cut it up on the spot or put it through the shredder.

And soon enough, this kind of view-point discrimination might cost you yours.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. Please consider following on Twitter @matt_everhard

Complementarianism: An Overview in Outline Form

Eight Reasons We Hold to a Biblical View of Gender Distinction

1.   God created men and women equal in value (neither gender is superior, per the hierarchical and hyper-feminist views). This is made explicit in the Creation account where Scripture says in Genesis 1:27,

So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

This declaration is repeated in 5:2. It is important to note that 1:27 occurs before the Fall, whereas 5:2 is repeated after the Fall. In other words, the Fall did not change the equality of value between male and female.

2.   Nevertheless, males and females are consistently given different roles to play in the home and the Church;[1] specifically, the male is given headship (or primacy of initiative) in both Church and home. The account of Creation in Genesis 2 makes this explicit, where Adam is given the primary charge (Genesis 2:15).  We note Eve’s God-designated role as helpmate to Adam. This assumes Adam is on a mission of obedience already! Eve would not have anything for which to “help” Adam if he were not a man-on-fire for obedience to God!

3.   It is NOT undesirable or oppressive to submit to one who is being obedient to God already! This is true of course, assuming that the “helpmate” has already determined to follow Christ in her own life as well. Assuming both marriage partners are Christ-followers, they ought to be walking in the same direction and with the same conviction. If the husband is being obedient to God, a wife’s submission is therefore an extension of her obedience to God.

4.   The husband/wife covenant is to be modeled after the Christ/Church covenant as Ephesians 5:22-33 shows. If male headship and female support are compromised, the covenant of marriage fails to do what it was originally designed by God to do, viz. illustrate the authority of Christ over His grateful and joyfully obedient bride, the elect.

5.   Biblically, “submission” not at all a bad word as our culture suggests, but is rather a beautiful picture of honor. The Greek word hypotasso (submit, cf. Ephesians 5:22) is used several times to describe the wife’s obligation to her husband, but we must not forget that hypotasso is a verb that is used to describe the disposition of Christ as well. For instance Jesus was said to hypotasso to Joseph and Mary in Luke 2:51. Christ is also said to hypotasso the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28. Obviously, this verb does not imply any sort of inferiority (as Christ is fully divine and worthy of all praise) but rather a loving inclination towards honor.

6.   Submission for the wife ought not to be a burden, but rather a joy. After all, the man is told to love his wife “as Christ loves the Church,” which means he ought to be ready to bleed, suffer, and die for her! We note that in Ephesians 5, after Paul counsels women to submit to their husbands, he does not tell the men “therefore subjugate your wives.” On the contrary, the parallel command is not to oppress them but to love them. He even says to do this “as Christ loved the Church,” that is, unto His own death by crucifixion. For this reason, a man ought to love his own wife, even if doing so should result in his own torture or death.

7.   Egalitarianism is in error because it robs BOTH genders of their God-given uniqueness. By minimizing the differences between genders, our culture is headed towards becoming an increasingly androgynous (asexual) society. Consider this example. The Navy has just changed its longstanding policy regarding women serving aboard submarines. While gender roles are obviously complicated within the Church, how much more complicated is social policy outside the Church! Christian sociologists are beginning to notice how the very idea of gender is being stripped down to nothing. Current trends such as homosexual marriages, same-sex couples adopting children, and the epidemic of the fatherlessness of American children further underscore an almost incessant urge to strip both genders of all intelligible giftedness and meaning, rendering one (or both) utterly inconsequential.

 

8.   On the other hand, complementarianism is written into our very DNA. For instance, if a criminal or wild animal breaks into the home of a married couple in the middle of the night, the course of nature suggests that a man should automatically rise to defend his wife and children, not push his wife into the way. This comes instinctively as he is created to lead and defend. On the other hand, women are uniquely gifted in other categories of life experience. For instance, a wife may be much better at tending to a child with an inconsolable earache, and may possess special gifts of tenderness, compassion, and mercy. This comes instinctively, as she is created to care and nurture. Obviously, while women can fight off intruders and men can tend to hurting children, nature itself dictates that each gender has unique and special properties given by God that cannot be extinguished without harming the human race in general.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. 

---

[1] See also 1 Corinthians 14:33-35; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:1-5; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

One Fang for the Family, Another for the Church: Why Satan Rages Against God's Created Institutions

Satan may be overtly wicked, heinous, and wretchedly decrepit, but he is no fool. He may be the most depraved, sinister, blasphemous, and impious of all of God’s creatures but he is not unintelligent. He knows how to destroy cultures. He knows how to dismantle entire civilizations. He has been destroying civilizations since the very beginning.

In the thousands of years that he has been implementing his destructive methodology his record has become quite impressive. Experience has taught him a thing or two about dismantling entire cultures. He just needs time to apply his craft.   

Listen to the full sermon audio of this blog post here. 

One Fang for the Family; the Other for the Church

Wherever the wicked one crawls on his serpentine belly, you can be sure that he is going to aim one poisonous fang at the family, and the other at the Christian church. Destroying these two things is critical to his assault on the glory of God.  

Why does Satan rage so violently against the family and the church? Why is it that Satan puts so much of his demonic energy into destroying marriages and churches? Why does he stop at nothing to destroy our God-ordained gender roles, and undo vows of fidelity and faithfulness?

I think it is because the enemy is a lot smarter than we give him credit for. He knows that above all things, marriage points to Christ and His love for the elect. In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul writes an extended analogy to compare a husband’s love for his wife with Christ’s love for the Church. In the pinnacle of his comparison, Paul says in Ephesians 5:32, “This mystery” (in context, marriage itself as described in vs. 31) “is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

This is shocking what Paul says here if we grasp his meaning: Christ didn’t just come to illustrate marriage; marriage was created to illustrate Christ! Or to say it another way: the highest possible meaning of Christ’s death was NOT as an illustration for marriage (although it is that too) but rather that the highest possible meaning of marriage is to point illustrate Christ’s love for the elect.

The enemy knows this better than we do. That’s why he will stop at nothing to destroy your marriage and your church. He knows that a good marriage and a strong church inextricably point to the glory of Jesus. Therefore he hates them both. 

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. 

Why Take a Stand on Marriage?

Martin Luther once wrote that if we are not defending the gospel at the very point that it is being attacked in our own generation, we are not defending it at all. It is for this reason that our 380-member church in the small, rural town of Brooksville, Florida decided to act. 

While we are immensely proud of a recent chicken-sandwich chain whose founder boldly stated his convictions regarding traditional marriage, the elders of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church feel that it is primarily the church’s calling  to defend biblical orthodoxy. Our elders and I could not stand idly by while an attack on marriage—a thinly veiled attack on the creation order and the Creator—rages before our very eyes. 

The Brooksville Statement on Marriage is a 600-word declaration of conscience that attempts to do three things. (1) First, we hope to clearly define marriage in a generation in which the word “marriage” itself has lost all semblance of meaning. (2) Second, we hoped to positively state our convictions regarding the delineations of human sexuality, rather than make a polemical attack on those lifestyles with which we ardently disagree. (3) Third, we hoped to speak a timely word of compassion and grace in a world of “bumper sticker” one-liners and alleged hate-speech.  

Our hope is that this small town church declaration would inspire like-minded evangelical churches across the globe to adopt this (or a similar) statement, in order to provide a desperately needed prophetic voice in veritable wilderness of confusion.  

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. He is an author and signer of The Brooksville Statement on Marriage. 

Book Review: The Hobbit. By J.R.R. Tolkien

I must preface this review by saying that I do not usually like fiction. I am primarily a pastor. But I loved The Hobbit.

When I heard the announcement that Tolkien's great prequel to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was soon be made into a movie trilogy of its own right--and indeed the film adventure begins in theaters today--I thought it was time to delve into this classic adventure myself. I am so glad that I did.

Let's start with character development. Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Wizard are two of the best characters Tolkien has ever created. (And he has created hundreds!) In The Hobbit, we learn to trust each of them. Bilbo emerges as a reluctant yet heroic protagonist. He is hesitant, traditional, mannered, quick-witted, and yet shockingly courageous. This despite his diminutive stature! Drawn into an adventure larger than life--to recapture dwarvish treasure held captive by a murderous dragon--Biblo shows himself over and over again to be the most reliable compatriot of the band.

Gandalf on the other hand is Biblo's perfect compliment. He is strong, indomitable, larger than life, and yet flighty and preoccupied. He swoops in at just the right moments to rescue the would-be treasure hunters. In chapter five (revised in later editions) we also meet the grotesque Gollum, bent helplessly inward by the ring's debilitating powers. The repartee between Bilbo and Gollum while the ring's fate stands on the line is deeply memorable. We only learn later that all of Middle Earth hangs also in the balance of this test of wits between the deformed Gollum and the sharp-tongued hobbit.

In terms of visual drama and setting, Tolkien in unmatched. He is able to create vast worlds that seem both familiar and impossible to the reader. Throughout his works, the Shire, the Misty Mountains, the Mines of Moria, Esgaroth, and Mirwood are described with vivid imagery. Tolkien creates a world that can both enrapture and repulse his readers. Few fictional writers can create and balance such elaborate settings as Tolkien does. (Thankfully, the movies have not let us down in portraying these stunning worlds).

Most readers will be not surprised to note that The Hobbit (much like The Lord of the Rings series) contains a substantial amount of poetry. In Tolkien, this functions to create a timeless quality, blending Middle Earth's mythic age into current bends in the plot. The poetry often emerges in the form of dwarvish songs, assuring the reader that the characters themselves are captivated by myths and legends of their own. These poetic songs and tales are sometimes warning, and sometimes consoling the heroes along their path of destiny.

The plot itself, primarily a dragon-slaying tale, never lags. In each successive chapter, Bilbo finds himself entrapped in another web (once literally!) that seems at first inescapable. Once Biblo and the dwarves--led by the overly confident Thorin Oakenshield--actually meet the dragon Smaug, the reader stands convinced that their gold-snatching feat will at last be impossible. Only the heroic resolve of a certain halfling will prove otherwise! But I won't spoil the tale for you here.

The Hobbit ends exactly where the reader hopes it will all along: with a cataclysmic battle scene featuring all the forces of Middle Earth present. Men, elves, dwarves, wargs, gobblins, eagles, and one particularly irrepressible wizard all arm themselves for battle to the death for fame and fortune.

No wonder this work is timeless!

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

Why We Wrote What We Wrote: The Brooksville Statement on Marriage

 By Matthew Everhard.

Martin Luther once wrote that if we are not defending the gospel at the very point that it is being attacked in our own generation, we are not defending it at all. It is for this reason that our 380-member church in the small, rural town of Brooksville, Florida decided to act.

While we are immensely proud of a recent chicken-sandwich chain whose founder boldly stated his convictions regarding traditional marriage, the elders of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church feel that it is primarily the church’s calling  to defend biblical orthodoxy. Our elders and I could not stand idly by while an attack on marriage—a thinly veiled attack on the creation order and the Creator—rages before our very eyes. 

The Brooksville Statement on Marriage is a 600-word declaration of conscience that attempts to do three things. (1) First, we hope to clearly define marriage in a generation in which the word “marriage” itself has lost all semblance of meaning. (2) Second, we hoped to positively state our convictions regarding the delineations of human sexuality, rather than make a polemical attack on those lifestyles with which we ardently disagree. (3) Third, we hoped to speak a timely word of compassion and grace in a world of “bumper sticker” one-liners and alleged hate-speech.  

Our hope is that this small town church declaration would inspire like-minded evangelical churches across the globe to adopt this (or a similar) statement, in order to provide a desperately needed prophetic voice in veritable wilderness of confusion. 

[Go to the official website here].

The Brooksville Statement on Marriage

Definition

Marriage is beautiful because God is glorious. God, in His infinite Trinitarian wisdom, created and ordained marriage to display the mysterious union of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22-25). As the creator and author of marriage, God alone has the authority to define it. This He did in the second chapter of Genesis where God, having created both groom and bride, brought them together personally (2:22) and a benediction was pronounced over the couple;  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (2:24, ESV). For this reason, Christian believers do now hold—and have always held—that marriage is between one man and one woman; that it is sealed by the exchange of covenant vows; and that it is intended for the whole of natural life, until death.

On the Interpretation of Scripture

We Christian believers regard the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired, inerrant, and infallible authority under which we live. We regard the clarity of Scripture to be sufficient for us to interpret the Bible accurately on matters of both faith and practice, using straightforward grammatical and historical principles. For this reason, we reject all attempts to obscure or “reread” Biblical passages which abundantly state the parameters of human sexuality. Sexual relations are to be enjoyed as a gift, and exclusively, between a married man and his own wife alone (Exodus 20:14; Hebrews 13:4). Any alternate readings of Scripture that intentionally or unintentionally obscure this foundational Biblical presupposition are to be rejected.

On Sin and Grace                                              

While it is true that Christians are called to hate transgression and iniquity, we find the sin within our own hearts—and not the sin of our neighbors—to be the most egregious of all. We lament and repent of our own sin first; be it in thought, word, or deed. We welcome those of all races, genders, ethnicities, and sexual inclinations to repent and believe in Jesus Christ and to worship in our churches. We sympathize with all who struggle in temptation, and exhort them to pursue “the obedience of faith” and embrace the new life given to the Redeemed by the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, we continue to reject any and every sin that degrades God’s glorious creation of marriage, including: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, homosexuality, polygamy, lust, pornography, coercive abstinence while in the state of marriage, and all forms of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Christians are called to love—and not hate—our enemies and those who persecute us (Matt 5:44). Thus, we utterly disregard any attempt to mischaracterize our convictions on the above matters as “hate speech,” for to tell the truth on these matters is indeed a most loving and gracious act. 

On Human Laws and Ordinances

Moreover, mankind can pass no law that redefines marriage any more than mortal man can pass a law that declares the light of the sun to be dark, or the gravity of the earth to be ceased. Though various laws may be passed by the agency of human pen and ink; or judgments rendered from human courts (higher or lower); yet human beings have not the prerogative, now or ever, to alter, change, or redefine marriage.

On Civil Disobedience

Finally, then, we the undersigned stand firm in our convictions on these matters and refuse to take any such actions as would compel us to violate either Scripture or conscience--even if so compelled by civil law--for “to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” Amen.

Teaching Elders: Rev. Matthew Everhard. Rev. David Franklin. Ruling Elders: David Peeler. David Field, Scott Knight, Doug Dempsey, Gwynn Blair, and Dr. George Boring (clerk). 

Become a signer of the Brooksville Statement on Marriage by "liking" our Facebook page. 

Christianity: "Everywhere Spoken Against"

When the Apostle Paul finally made it to the city of Rome in Acts 28:14, it probably wasn't what he had imagined. He came in the chains of a prisoner.

At Rome, Paul and Luke found a small enclave of Christians. But it was the Jews, to whom Paul always brought the Gospel first, who had an unusual report: "We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you. But we desire to hear from you what your views are, for with regard to this sect [i.e. Christianity] we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Acts 28:21-22, emphasis added).

Why is this true? Why is Christianity "everywhere spoken against"? How is it possible that a message consisting of  (1) a loving God (2) who sent His son to die for our sins (3) and forgives us by grace, while (4) giving us His Holy Spirit to live lives of love, joy, peace, patience, and kindness--can be the subject of such sustained, organized, and vitriolic resistance?

At least three factors explain this ubiquitous resistance to the Gospel.

First we remember that the Gospel is an attack, a direct assault really, against the spiritual forces of evil. Every sinner that is freed from sin by the Gospel is a slave freed from the clutches of the enemy. As it happens, most masters don't let their slaves go easily. Satan kicks and screams against every one of his captives who are loosed.

Secondly, remember the very nature of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is only good news when the "bad news" is first heeded. The "bad news" of course is that we are totally depraved sinners, hopeless to save ourselves outside of the grace of Christ (cf. Romans 3:10-18). As it turns out, many people don't like to be told that they are sinners! The Gospel itself begins with the offense of declaring the truth about our own human nature.

Finally, our lives of committed obedience are also offensive. Sure, we cannot live perfect this side of Heaven, even in the redemptive grace of Christ. Our opponents are quick to remind us of our many failures. But the very fact that we even pursue holiness is a stick-poke in the eye to those who have no such motive as grace. Our desire to live as holy persons, pursuing the life of our Master, will always be an offense to those still captive to sin.

As long as these three factors are still true--and they will be until Christ returns--we can expect that "everywhere Christianity will be spoken against."

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. 

As Debate Season Arrives, Don't Lose Your Mind

We are about to find ourselves in the throes of the political debate season. This is the time where our local and national politicians grapple for positions like Olympic Greco-Roman wrestlers. The only difference is that there are no logical referees to flag and penalize formal and informal fallacies during debates. Wrestlers, on the other hand, must compete according to the rules of the mat.

I would contend that Christian believers are to be among the clearest thinkers in the political arena. As proponents of absolute truth in a world of relativity, followers of Christ ought to have the sturdiest grip on the logic of rational persuasion among all who grapple on the mat of political discourse. At the same time, we ought to be impervious to the techniques of our opponents who often break the rules of logic in order to toss us on our cognitive shoulders.

With that in mind, let me re-introduce some of the rules of Aristotelian logic, long lost among most political aficionados today.


First, let’s consider the difference between a formal and informal fallacy.

Logical arguments should be inferred from a persuasive set of premises and a clearly deduced conclusion (a) All men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is a mortal. This completes a classical syllogism.

Formal logical fallacies draw conclusions that are not warranted or supported by the premises. If the premises are shown to be false or the conclusion is not derived from the premises, we ought to reject the argument as logically persuasive.

Informal fallacies however, are much less apparent. Often they are tied to the manner of presentation or the tact of the speaker. Although often emotionally very compelling, they are nonetheless to be regarded as non-persuasive rationally. Here is where we must be very careful. This is, after all, what logic is about: rational persuasive power, not emotive power.

With that being said, here are some of the top informal fallacies likely to be present in most political debates:

(1) Ad Hominem Fallacy: This is an attack against the man. While it may tell us about his character, personal attacks do not compel us rationally against a man’s position. Example: John is a Cretan. We cannot trust his tax policy. He may be the worst dirt-bag alive; but that has nothing to do with the logical consistency of this tax plan.

(2) Guilt by Association Fallacy: This is an attack against a man’s known associates or relationships. Again, while it may speak about his character, it says nothing about his argument per se. Example: John has been photographed with Hitler at a recent campaign rally; therefore we cannot trust his environmental protection policy. Notice that the emotional power of this correlation (John and Hitler) has nothing to do with his actual position on the environment.

(3) Ad Populum Fallacy: This is an appeal to the opinion of the majority of the audience. Here the candidate attempts to cast himself as a ‘man of the people’ and his opponent as an extremist. Notice how often this is done every day in ads. Again, the opinion of the majority can be and often is wrong and should not be rationally persuasive. Example: Most people accept homosexual marriage today; since John is in favor of traditional marriage, he is an extremist and should be regarded with skepticism. 

(4) False Alternatives Fallacy: This one is very subtle. Here the argument seems to suggest that there are only two possible alternatives that can be taken in any decision. It forces the opponent to choose between options as a false dichotomy. In reality, there may be dozens of other possible options and solutions. Example: We must either raise taxes or reduce our armed forces. So which is it, Joe? Are you for raising our tax burden, or weakening our national defense? 

(5) Straw Man Fallacy: Again, this is present in almost every debate you will watch this season. Here the candidate intentionally reduces the force and strength of his opponent’s position in order to knock it down more easily. He argues against a much lesser position than his opponent actually holds. By making a man’s position sound stupid, he evades actually having to take him to task on specifics. Example: Since my opponent stands for lesser government, he probably won’t even fund a police or fire department to protect our homes! 

(6) Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: In this fallacy, an individual refuses to accept proven facts no matter how persuasive they may be. His predispositions simply refuse him the latitude to change positions no matter how rationally compelling the actual data. Example: I don’t care what psychological affects a post-abortive woman suffers; I believe in a woman’s right to choose. 

(7) Circular Reasoning Fallacy: These are often a bit more complex to discern. Here, the debater assumes as a premise the very conclusion he is trying to prove. His conclusion is based on accepting a priori the very thing at which he hopes to arrive. Example: This tax will be good for local business. We all want businesses to thrive in this economy. Therefore we must write tax laws that will promote economic growth, such as the one I am presenting.

(8) Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy: This fallacy alienates a man from affirming a position that he once denied by his actions. It exposes a man when he moves from a lesser position to a stronger one. Often we call this “flip flopping.” But, in some cases, changing positions is actually the best thing a man can do! Example: Jones says he is for reducing taxes. But he himself voted to increase taxes four years ago. Of course, times and situations do change. If a man realizes the error of his ways and changes, this cannot be logically held against the cogency of current position now.

As you watch the debates on television or perhaps in person this fall, see how many formal and informal fallacies you hear during argumentation. Once you notice how often our candidates argue emotively rather than rationally, you may wish you lived in a different generation completely.

Perhaps the Greco-Roman era?

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. Follow on Twitter @matt_everhard

Book Review. John Piper. Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God

The heart burns in worship what the mind provides for fuel. This is true whether we are believers or idolators. Therefore let us burn on what is true.

This is the centering thought of John Piper's delightful book, Think: the Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Throughout, Piper connects these two great facets of our humanity: loving the Lord our God with both heart and mind as Jesus commanded.

Often these two pursuits (heart and mind) are placed at odds against one another as though doctrine was cold and dead, while real worship was "felt" emotionally, disconnected to propositional truth.

In this book, Piper admonishes believers to fully engage God with our mind. We are to intellectually pursue the wisdom of our Creator since worship and clear thinking (especially about His revealed Word) should be inseparable.

Piper gently attacks two false positions. The first false position is that worship is primarily done with one's feelings. Here Piper attacks the anti-intellectualism that has pervaded American forms of evangelicalism, especially since the Second Great Awakening. On the other hand, Piper deconstructs the prideful position of those whose knowledge "puffs up" lending itself to arrogance, conceit, and self-confidence.

Working through several key Biblical passages throughout the book (Proverbs 2:3-5; Matthew 22:35-40; 1 Corinthians 1:20-24) Piper is relentlessly exegetical. He never strays far from his key Biblical texts. He carefully shows how thoughtful Biblical Christians are exhorted to pursue an apprehension of divine truth with humility.

Chapters seven and eight are worth the price of the whole book. There, Piper utterly destroys modern relativism as both rationally incoherent, and intellectually dishonest. As I read these two chapters which expose the pride of the heart of unbelieving man, I repeatedly wished I could put these pages before the eyes of every member of my church.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville Florida.

Book Review: Francis Schaeffer. "The God Who is There."

Francis Schaeffer was one of the more important apologists and evangelists in the twentieth century. Almost thirty years after his death, his works seem to many to be prophetic. It becomes all thoughtful Christians to be familiar with his works at some basic level. For many, this volume may be the place to begin.

Full disclosure: readers should know that his "The Great Evangelical Disaster" would be a much easier read for those less conversant in philosophy.

This particular volume is bound with all three of Schaeffer's primary works in his essential trilogy; "The God Who is There," "Escape from Reason," and "He is There and He is Not Silent." Here, I will be reviewing only the first book, "The God Who is There," as it is foundational to its sequels. 

Schaeffer's overall goal is to trace the flow of history to the modern era where the idea of absolute truth ("true truth" as he often calls it) has been abandoned. Schaeffer traces this loss of absolutes at critical junctures in the arenas of philosophy, art, music, and language before moving on to theology. Schaeffer sees the abandonment of absolutes as the death knell to the individual man and the entirety of our culture.

In this work, Schaeffer coins the important term "the line of despair," viz. the threshold at which humanity must abandon rationality and reason in order to also abdicate absolutes. Once a man abandons antithesis (the idea that some things are true and their opposites necessarily untrue; some actions moral and their opposites evil) man begins to live in a realm in which all meaning and truth are compromised. Among the losses most precious, ironically, is man's own understanding of his own life and purpose.

In the realm of theology, Schaeffer diagnoses the problem and deception of liberalism, namely, that it makes a leap into obscurity by removing the traditional meaning of words and replacing them with nebulous undefinable ideas. For instance, the very word "god" can be imputed with virtually any meaning (or lack of meaning) that the speaker desires. While one has the ability to continue the use of religious language (and thus to reap a sentimental benefit) he may simultaneously forgo any real foundational relationship with living God who entered time/space/history in the person of Jesus Christ.

From there, Schaeffer helps Christians to begin to speak to this dreadful existentialism by addressing modern man at the point of his own absurdity. While pointing out the hopelessness of existentialism (what we would now call "post-modernism"; Schaeffer called it modernism), he acknowledges that the weight of the despair of the modern worldview has the potential to crush its adherents if they were intellectually honest enough to live consistently with their own beliefs.

Thus, in the latter half of the book, Schaeffer calls for an intelligent, compassionate defense of the rational, historic Christian faith through a combination of apologetic approaches. Throughout "The God Who Is There," Schaeffer's love for and pity upon unbelieving modern men comes through strongly. Of course, listening and responding to the questions and objections of skeptics was part of his lifeblood, and integral to his intellectual rescue mission in L'Abri in Switzerland.

Ultimately, Schaeffer cries out for three things: (1) an uncompromising defense of doctrinal, systematic Christianity (2) a compassionate approach to men who have fallen below the line of despair and (3) and an integrated all-encompassing worldview founded upon the absolute truth of the God who is (truly) there!

If you are ready for an intellectual challenge, read this book. 

Matthew Everhard is the senior pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

In Defense of Connectional Polity

By Matthew Everhard

With the close of another large General Assembly this week, the world of Presbyterianism begins to wind down what has been a very active summer of business meetings. Many of these meetings have been heated. Some have even been vitriolic. Each has spawned thousands of blog articles and Twitter posts. 

The gavels have been busy. The podiums, once polished, have since been worn dull. The overtures—both ascending and descending—have been, well, ascending and descending for most of June and July.  Most of the microphones have now been unplugged. 

Let’s look at what has been accomplished…

One assembly (PCA) dissected the theological ramifications of intinction, taking communion by dipping the bread in the cup rather than receiving the elements in two sacramental acts. Another (ARP) spent their energy debating their relationship to an academic institution’s governing board. A third (EPC) made a political statement on a few clauses in the “Obamacare” act. A fourth (PCUSA) voted on whether to invest or divest in corporations doing business in Israel. 

A brief survey of some of these more “interesting” matters debated may cause the uninitiated to ask: What is the point in all this? Indeed. What is the point? 

I freely admit that my role as a Teaching Elder in the EPC comes with far more desirable responsibilities than reviewing sub-committee minutes. I would rather preach or baptize a baby any day. For that matter, I’d even prefer a church disciplinary hearing! 

Nevertheless, I’d like to state a few reasons that all of these organizational structures are still part of the work of the Kingdom of God. 

First, the Body of Christ by definition is an organic living connection of various parts, all in submission together to our Head, Jesus Christ. Paul makes this argument in 1 Corinthian 12. Of course, one of the best ways that we show our unity in Christ is by actually meeting together to worship. At each assembly, worship is an integral part. All the assemblies that I know of received communion as a major focus of the event. The worship and sacraments tend not to get much press, but are central to our summer meetings.

Second, meeting together as believers on a regional (presbytery) national (assembly) or even global scale is a biblical act. Acts 15 is the account of the Jerusalem council where one of the most pressing theological questions of the day was settled, that of the inclusion of the gentiles. This meeting took place by way of gathering the apostles and elders of a number of first century churches. By meeting to discuss the relevant theological controversies of our day, we are carrying on that biblical process of discernment, even though the councils of men do sometimes fail (WCF 1.10 and 31.3). 

Ironically, these meetings that often display our disagreements are intended by God to show our unity. Anyone who says that the church of Jesus Christ shouldn’t have serious disagreements about weighty issues simply hasn’t read Paul’s epistles carefully. Don’t forget that another metaphor for the church is a family. Do you know any families that never argue? 

Third, is there really any alternative? Sure, a church could refuse to participate or even to choose independence. Non-denominational churches have the advantage of pointing out the foolish decisions of other believers’ councils. But what does that communicate to the unbelieving world? That non-denominational local churches can’t get along with anyone at all?

 

I am not sure that independence or non-participation better communicate “unity” to the unbelieving world than rowdy business sessions on a late Friday afternoon. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 31 details the full theological underpinnings of our reasons for meeting together. There we read these wise lines: 

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

Call me a glutton for punishment. Sentence me to death by long boring meetings. But I still believe these words in our confession. I am still Presbyterian despite some of our lengthy debates and bone-headed decisions. 

I will see you next year in Denver!

Matthew Everhard is the pastor of Faith EvangelicalPresbyterian Church (EPC) in Brooksville, Florida. Follow him on Twitter @matt_everhard or friend him on facebook at www.facebook.com/pastor.everhard