Few people are aware that the government of France has a department dedicated to the preservation of the French language.  This department monitors the use of language throughout the country.  Their desire is to preserve the French language from deterioration.  For example, if other nations and cultures dilute the French language with foreign words, then the people of France begin to lose their identity as a people.  They are no longer marked by their unique cultural heritage but instead bear the marks of mass marketing.  For example, many words within our own language are not actual nouns but name brands.  Today’s words were often yesterday’s brand names: Kleenex used to be tissue, Coke used to be cola or soda, White Out used to be correction fluid, Jell-O used to be gelatin, and Band Aids used to be adhesive bandages.  Due to the power of mass marketing, companies have literally changed the American lexicon and have influenced people to be walking advertisements.  This trend is not limited to the secular realm but has also found its way into the Church.

The word “pilgrim” is one that should characterize all Christians, as the Scriptures say that the people of God from the earliest days and even now are “strangers and pilgrims” on this earth (Heb 11.13; 1 Pet 2.11; KJV).  As the people of God, the church, we pilgrim through this world until we arrive at the heavenly city, new Jerusalem, the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God (Heb 11.10).  While we as a corporate people pilgrim together, each one of us travels a different road.

When we look at the theological landscape of the Church we see a legion of theological views.  Even within confessional Reformed communities such as the OPC there is great theological diversity.  On eschatology, for example, there are pre-, a-, and postmillennialists.  Likewise, in protology, there are literalist, day-age, and framework advocates.  There has certainly been no shortage of debate between these camps.  Yet, what we often do not find in the debate between these camps is the treatment of interpretive presuppositions.  In other words, advocates of these positions debate exegetical conclusions rather than the merits of their interpretive methods.  These views will never be reconciled as long as the respective interpretive methods are not analyzed.  Let us look several examples to illustrate this point.

Those within the Reformed church love to study doctrine.  We often gather together in one setting or another, open the Bible, and explore the wealth of wisdom that we find.  We also like to open some crusty old tome written long ago and let the breeze of ages past blow through our minds.  Whether we study Scripture or learn more about theology, we love to hone and tune our orthodoxy.  What is a problem is that we can make good discussion when it comes to doctrinal issues.  We often demonstrate, however, that we do not understand our doctrine as well as we might think in our every day life.  Let us consider the following doctrines.

One of the common criticisms leveled against the study of theology is that seldom does doctrine have an impact on the day-in and day-out living of our lives.  The common cry is, “Who needs doctrine, just give me Jesus!”  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  To say that doctrine does not have an impact on the daily living of our lives is to say that God has no impact upon our lives.  This, of course, is absurd.  Let us see how a doctrine germane to Christology has practical implications for the lives of fathers.

Our federal government is fond of putting mandated warning labels on a host of products that we use.  We see warning labels on tobacco, alcohol, music, medication, cars, and anything the government deems dangerous.  Yet, curiously enough the government has not placed a warning label on one thing that is quite possibly one of the most dangerous inventions to date, our televisions.  Why do we need to put warning labels on our televisions?  Isn’t the television simply another mode of communicating information?  Are there not a cornucopia of beneficial uses for television like news reporting, educational programs, family entertainment, and of course religious broadcasting?  Let’s take these questions and answer them one at a time.  By the end of this article, we will see why we need warning labels on our televisions.  Let’s look at the first question.

The next time you sit down to eat a meal, stop, and think about the theological significance of what you are doing.  Have you ever applied the full weight of our biblical worldview to the practice of eating?  Ken Myers, the host of the Mars Hill Audio Journal, draws attention to the fact that the consumption of food is packed with theological significance.  Think about it, God could have made us like the plants of the field—we would simply stand out in the sun for a period of time and photosynthetically collect the energy we need.  Instead, God made us so that we must consume food.  Moreover, God could have made our appetite for food much like that of an animal—simply consume whatever is at hand regardless of the taste.  Instead, when we eat we often employ all of the five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing.  God gave us the ability to enjoy the created order through our ability to eat food.  This, however, is not the only theological aspect of food.

The Bible and our Lord’s example call Christians to be a people of prayer.  We are to pray at all times, for all things, alone, with out family, and with the church: “Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints” (Eph. 6.18).

“Knock, knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“The Pastor and an Elder.”
“The Pastor and an Elder!?  What are they doing here?!”