From Geneva to Rome?

Friends of ours in Oklahoma, whose friendship we greatly appreciated then, and still treasure today, shocked us recently with the news that they had converted to Roman Catholicism.

They had worshiped at the church I served in Norman, and, like most people who find their way to OPC churches, were card-carrying Protestants and Calvinists. So the news of their new ecclesiastical commitment was surprising, to say the least.

Now, I was sure as soon as I heard of it that their decision was well-thought out. Neal is a thinker, very articulate, and well-read theologically. In fact, he teaches philosophy at the University of Oklahoma. So, I knew it couldn't be the case that they left the Protestant faith on a whim, or for some flimsy reason.

But this meant I was very curious to know what were the reasons that compelled Neal to lead his family into the Roman Catholic Church. So I've been reading his blog, in which he details the theological journey that led him Rome-ward. And, I've asked him many questions by e-mail (to which he usually responds the next day with an e-mail twice as long as mine! I thought pastors were the ones who are supposed to be loquacious!).

This has been a learning experience for me. I have to admit that I really don't know a whole lot about Roman Catholic theology. At seminary, I was immersed in the Reformed tradition (and rightly so, since it is a Reformed seminary!). The emphasis there was not to highlight what separates the Protestants from the Catholics, or the conservatives from the liberals, though obviously due attention was paid to those concerns. Rather, the emphasis was on positive instruction in biblical exegesis, apologetics, and systematic theology. All of this came from a distinctively Protestant and Reformed perspective, of course, but that perspective was given not so much in contradistinction to Catholic theology, but as the faithful and true expression of the teaching of Scripture.

Now, as a result of my interaction with Neal, I have been doing some deeper thinking about some of the tenets of Protestant theology that I have in some ways taken as a matter of course. To be sure, I am still deeply committed to the system of doctrine expressed in the Reformed confessions of faith. In my heart and my mind, when it comes to such things as justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, and other doctrines, I am convinced as ever the Reformers got it right.

At the same time, hearing a former Calvinist and now Catholic give his reasons for doubting these teachings has prompted me to try and understand better the biblical principles undergirding the system of doctrine expressed by the Reformed faith. What is at stake in our understanding of justification? What was the principle that led the Reformers to insist upon the doctrine of sola scriptura? What is the nature of Christ's church?

I do believe our friends are true Christians, and they believe the same about us. At the same time, there are some significant differences between Catholics and Protestants that cannot simply be brushed aside by good will. And, when the issue at hand is nothing less than understanding the Christian faith, which alone can save sinners from sin and death, the pursuit of truth demands honest discussion.

A general update, and some pictures

The days are long, literally and figuratively. The sun is out for all of our waking hours, and even in the middle of the "night", it looks like dusk. And we are staying busy with all the usual activities - church, school, breaking up quarrels, etc. One activity we've added recently is trying to bag a "king". As in a King Salmon, the highly-coveted fish that "run" up the rivers this time of year to their spawning grounds. Kings are the, well, king of the salmon - big and tasty. And, from what we're told, they can be tough to land if you actually hook one. Not that we would know anything about that. We've been out twice so far and haven't had so much as a nibble. But, we'll keep trying. We can't be true Alaskans until we've gotten our king.

It's been a while since I've posted some pictures. Here are a few snapshots from the Johnson family over the past couple of weeks:



We had a church bowling night last night. Sander is showing off his form.



Gumpa gave Meredith and Maggie each a birdhouse kit. We put them together yesterday, and hung them up in the backyard.



Meredith next to her birdhouse.



Moriah and her "buddy".



Moriah is showing her walking skills.

Loving discipline, or child abuse?

Our parenting methods would make us criminals in some countries. According to the Economist, there is a growing consensus in some parts of the world (especially Europe) that any sort of physical discipline of a child is abuse, and ought therefore to be illegal. In fact 18 European nations have already banned all forms of corporal punishment. A pan-European body, the Council of Europe, is aggressively seeking to end spanking as part of its mission to promote civil liberties. And the United Nations is pursuing a campaign to outlaw all corporal punishment, worldwide, by 2009.

Though the Economist considers this latter effort a typical bit of "Utopian dottiness" from the UN, and "wildly unrealistic," the fact is much of the Western world is moving in a direction to ban, or at least stigmatize, corporal punishment. The premise of the movement is that there is no fundamental distinction between corrective physical punishment, and child abuse. Both are immoral acts of violence that are just on different ends of the same scale.

But there is a difference in kind, not just in degree. Common sense teaches that a slap on the wrist or a spanking on the bottom is fundamentally a different creature than a blow to the stomach or head. The former is the controlled meeting out of a dose of mild pain, the latter a cruel and dehumanizing assault. A spanking (quaintly referred to as "smacking" by the Economist) is for correction for the child's own good or safety; abuse is the expression of an angry and even hateful heart whose purpose is only to hurt.

The Scriptures sanction spanking: "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die" (Proverbs 23:13). The Bible's view of discipline in general, whether a parent's discipline of his child, or God's discipline of his people, is that it serves redemptive purposes. For the child whose parents lovingly discipline him with controlled measures appropriate to his age, it is so that "he will not die," so that folly will be driven from him (22:15), and so that his soul will be saved from Sheol (23:14). For the child of God who endures God's discipline, he will enjoy "the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:11).

The point is that corporal discipline is one means that God has given us as parents to lead them in the paths of righteousness and life. It must always be accompanied by love, and by the communication of God's forgiveness for us in Christ. By itself, spanking may correct behavior. But mere behavior modification is not God's purpose for spanking. Rather, the rod is to help a child come to understand, and embrace, the grace of God in the gospel. This is why it is imperative for parents to hug and pray with their children after spanking them.

Sadly, this is just the sort of view of spanking that is increasingly considered odd. The Economist notes that a "pro-smacking" (who would want to be called that?!) lobby in New Zealand did not win much support because "their religious rhetoric - talk of loving corrections, followed by prayers - sounded weird." In my view, it is lumping spanking with child abuse that sounds pretty weird.

In any case, the article noted that the U.S. is something of a hold-out in this matter of spanking (no doubt due to the still-sizable presence of weird religious types). So, we are not outlaws, at least not for the present.