“Tenn. judge: Parents can name their baby ‘Messiah’”

WBIR-TV, Knoxville, Tenn.

Published 10:54 a.m. ET Sept. 18, 2013

Well. That will get your attention! Here are some of the details:

NEWPORT, Tenn. — A Tennessee judge reversed a ruling Wednesday ordering a mother to change her 8-month-old’s name from “Messiah.”

The boy’s mother, Jaleesa Martin, and father could not agree on a last name, which is how they ended up at a child support hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court last month.

Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew ordered the baby’s name be “Martin DeShawn McCullough.” His name included both parents’ last names but left out Messiah.

So the parents go before the judge concerning the last name but the judge, in making her ruling, tries to make them drop the first name, “Messiah.” Now, the magistrates ruling would be overturned by virtue of the fact that the parents were not there to discuss the first name but rather the last name and, it was decided, making them drop the first name was unconstitutional. Even so, the judge’s explanation was interesting.

“The word ‘Messiah’ is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person—and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Ballew said.

The mother, commenting later, said:

“I was shocked. I never intended on naming my son Messiah because it means God and I didn’t think a judge could make me change my baby’s name because of her religious beliefs,” said Martin.

The child’s name is now Messiah DeShawn McCollough. McCollough is the father’s name.

Martin said she’s relieved.[1]

Whew! There is a lot going on here! Quite apart from the legal angle, I am intrigued by a few things.

The judge actually is correct that the word “Messiah” is a title. But then so is the name “Judge” and I had a great uncle named Judge Reynolds, so…

And I am still chewing on the Judge’s argument that Jesus “earned” the title “Messiah.” Earned? That invokes an image of a person not having something and then getting something because he worked for that something. If that is what is meant, it is a problem. Jesus was the Messiah, the anointed redeemer, by virtue of what He did, yes (perhaps “fulfilled” instead of “earned”?) but more so He was the Messiah because He bore the divine anointing as such in His person. You do not have to “earn” what you “are.” Yet, He did show in His words and work that He was the Messiah.

Anyway, regardless of what you think of the legalities or semantics of the judge’s reasoning, it is a bit eyebrow-raising to name one’s child “Messiah.”

To some, the word “Messiah” may sound like a strange or exotic Old Testament word. But you need to understand that every time you say the word “Christ” you are saying Messiah.

Theologian James Leo Garrett Jr. explains.

The Hebrew word māšî(a)ḥ, meaning “anointed one,” was transliterated into Greek as messias and translated into Greek as Christos, a substantive derived from the Greek verb chriein, meaning “to anoint.” The Latin translation is Christus, and hence we have the English “Christ.”[2]

That is to say that as the word “Messiah” travels from a Hebrew tongue to an English tongue it tends to become “Christ” along the way.

We also refer to “Messiah” every time we say “Christian.” Alister McGrath writes:

The Roman historian Tacitus refers to Christians’ deriving their name from “Christ, who was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”[3]

So in a sense we have all taken on the name “Messiah,” though, for us, we mean that we are followers of or disciples of the Christ.

In the Apostles’ Creed way proclaim believe in “Jesus Christ.” But when we say this, what are we saying?

Continue reading →

Matthew 20

¹ “For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. ² After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. ³ And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, ⁴ and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ ⁵ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. ⁶ And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ ⁷ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ ⁸ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ ⁹ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. ¹⁰ Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. ¹¹ And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, ¹² saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ ¹³ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. ¹⁵ Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ ¹⁶ So the last will be first, and the first last.”

One of my favorite westerns is Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven.” In the climactic scene, William Munny (Eastwood) confronts the ruthless sheriff “Little Bill” (Gene Hackman) after “Little Bill” had Munny’s friend Ned (Morgan Freeman) killed and his body publicly displayed. Munny shoots “Little Bill” and then prepares to do so again while standing over the dying sheriff. “Little Bill” says to the looming Munny, “I don’t deserve to die like this.” To which Munny says (as only Clint Eastwood could say it), “Deserves got nothing to do with it.” Then he kills “Little Bill” in an act of vengeance.

It is a memorable and terrifying scene. It is interesting to me that one can find online debates about whether or not that line—“Deserves got nothing to do with it.”—makes sense, coming from Munny. Some argue that it does not make sense since Munny clearly kills “Little Bill” precisely because he deserved to die. Others, however, disagree, noting that Munny doesn’t think he deserves to live either, or that any of them do. Regardless, it is a great line: “Deserves got nothing to do with it.”

I wonder if that line works too in a positive sense? I think it does. In fact, I think it might be a good summary line for Matthew 20:1–16. In this story, Jesus seems to be saying the same thing, though as a note of hope, not of doom. When it comes to salvation and the Kingdom, “Deserves got nothing to do with it.” Rather, it is all of grace and the free gift of God.

Continue reading →

Human beings have produced no small amount of theories about how the world came to be. These include but are not limited to:

• Pantheism: God is the universe and the universe is God.
• Panentheism: God is present in and suffuses everything in the universe yet is not the universe.
• Deism: God winds up the world like a clock and then steps back and remains distant from it.
• Gnosticism: The evil demiurge, the offspring of Sophia, created the world.

On and on these theories goes. Over against them all is the assertion of the Apostles’ Creed and the biblical truths that undergird it: “I believe in God, the Father almighty; Creator of heaven and earth.”

That God is almighty and Father and that He creates heaven and earth is a foundational truth to all the rest of scripture. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” sets the Creator God over and against all opposing theories. Australian theologian Michael Bird writes:

God is not the creation—so no pantheism; God does not inhabit creation like an impersonal force—so no panentheism; God did not make the world and then permanently go off to lunch—so no deism; nor did an evil demigod create the world—so no Gnosticism. When we confess that God is Creator of heaven and earth, we are saying that God is distinct from creation, God is sovereign over creation, God loves his creation, God is concerned with creation, and God remains active in creation.[1]

Seen rightly, the biblical statement, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” and the creedal statement, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” are not merely positive assertions. They are also negative critiques. To say that God is (1) exists, (2) is Father, (3) is almighty, and (4) creates, is to rebuke all competing claims as insufficient and wrong.

No, God is not distant and aloof from creation, nor is He somehow trapped within it, nor is He evil thereby making creation evil. Instead, our good God who is Father and almighty makes the heavens and the earth, is outside of them, yet enters them relationally, through providential governance, and in works of power as He so desires. What is more, all of creation bears His fingerprints and so stand as evidence of His existence and His power.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

To this we say, “Amen!” Let us consider what it means that God is “Creator of heaven and earth.”

Continue reading →

Matthew 19

¹⁶ And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ¹⁷ And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” ¹⁸ He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, ¹⁹ Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁰ The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” ²¹ Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” ²² When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. ²³ And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” ²⁵ When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” ²⁶ But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” ²⁷ Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” ²⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ²⁹ And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. ³⁰ But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

In Emmanuel Carrère’s book, The Kingdom, he writes something that one rarely hears. He writes that he identifies with the rich young ruler of our text. Carrère writes that he still feels the pull of the Christian message that, as he puts it, “to really win I’d have to lose.” Even so, other voices in his head win out. After reflecting on his great success and his great intelligence and his great wealth, he writes, “Nevertheless, I think that the little voice of the Gospel is right. And like the rich young man, I walk away, sad and pensive, for I have great wealth.”[1]

Say what you will about this, but at least Carrère is exhibiting a degree of honesty rarely seen in our day. There are numbers of Christians who sing loudly in church, put money in the plate, and serve in various capacities, who, if they were placed in this story, would likewise walk away sad with the rich young man instead of giving it all away to stay with Jesus.

How about you? How about me?

Craig Keener observes that “Greek traditions also reported aristocratic young men who wanted to study under a famous teacher but were too spoiled to carry out what the teacher demanded.”[2] Am I too spoiled to follow Jesus? Are you? What is clear is this: the young man in our text certainly was. Let us watch his exchange with Jesus.

Continue reading →

In Joseph Heller’s classic work, Catch-22, he writes of a young soldier named Appleby. I find what he ways about Appleby to be unsettling. Heller writes:

Appleby was a fair-haired boy from Iowa who believed in God, Motherhood, and the American Way of Life, without ever thinking about any of them, and everybody who knew him liked him.[1]

Appleby believed in God as a cultural inheritance right alongside motherhood and America. Tellingly, he “believed” in these things “without ever thinking about any of them.”

Church, I must say this plainly: this simply will not do. “Belief” as an inheritance, “belief” as a cultural expectation, “belief” as a naïve acceptance of a reality one has not really considered with any seriousness, “belief” without “thinking about” that which we profess…none of these will suffice in an increasingly post-Christian age.

We must know what we mean when we say the word “God.” We must “think about” this. Otherwise, our belief is just a fancy way of saying “ignorance.” What is more, let us be clear about this: many of those who are seeking to pull you or your children or your grandchildren away from the faith are thinking about what they believe. A church without knowledge of its own creed and convictions is a church that truly is without either creed or conviction!

Let us understand what we mean when we say “God.” The Apostles’ Creed offers us two critically important attributes that helps us toward understanding. It says, “I believe in God, the Father almighty.” This little line is powerful in what it asserts and it demands our careful consideration.

God is Father.

God is almighty.

We cannot have a proper understanding of God without holding to both of these. Let us begin with the second attribute, then the first.

Continue reading →

Richard John Neuhaus once passed on this wonderful little anecdote:

At the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, the confessing atheist organization, Freedom from Religion Foundation, for the second year in a row put up a sign next to the Christmas tree. “In this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our material world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” On the backside of the sign they put the admonition, “Thou shalt not steal.” Sez who?[1]

Now, I suppose the atheists who put up this sign would say they were being tongue-in-cheek here, but I do believe that beneath the chuckle there is a very important truth: no matter what we might say about God on the front of our sign we find ways to smuggle Him in on the back. In other words, man is a religious creature and, as such, belief in God is in some ways unavoidable.

Neuhaus also passed this along.

The Barna Research Group of Ventura, California, does come up with these odd reports…The Barna people say, “Many atheists and agnostics possess theological perspectives that parallel the beliefs of Christians.” One out of three reads the Bible, most believe that there is a Heaven, and one out of five prays to God during a typical week. At least they’re Christian atheists and agnostics, of a sort.[2]

Here we see the point once again: many who proclaim disbelief on the front of the sign still find ways of saying “Credo! I believe!” on the back.

I want to consider the first line of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God…” Before we get to what this God is like, let us first consider the fact that humanity is drawn to believe that there is a God.

Continue reading →

Matthew 19

¹³ Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, ¹⁴ but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” ¹⁵ And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Charles Dickens once wrote, “In the world of little children, the greatest hurt of all is injustice.”[1]

I suspect there might be something to that. And if there is something to that, then the little children mentioned in Matthew 19 risked being very hurt indeed! For an injustice was being perpetrated against them. Namely, they were being kept from Jesus and their parents were being rebuked by Jesus’ closest followers!

This could have gone down as a very ugly episode, but Jesus would have none of it. In fact, Jesus’ reaction to the children and their parents being turned away changed this into something profoundly beautiful!

Continue reading →

On April 6, 1252, a man named Peter of Verona was traveling from Como to Milan. Along the way he met a group of assassins. These men were Manichaeans against whom Peter had been preaching. One of the assassins, a man named Carino, struck Peter with an axe in the head. It knocked him to the ground. Before he died, however, he had just enough strength to rise up on his knees, take his finger, and write in his own blood a form of the first three words of the Apostles’ Creed: “Credo in Deum,” “I believe in God.”[1] Then he was struck down for good.

The painter Fra Angelico has immortalized this amazing moment in his painting of the scene. There, we see the bloodied Peter of Verona on bended knee, his murderer preparing for the final deadly blow, and the words in his own blood: “Credo in Deum.”

That Peter would write the first words of the Apostles’ Creed is telling and moving. In his last moments he wanted to offer an articulation of his heart’s conviction concerning the Christian faith, concerning Jesus. So he wrote “Credo!” It is my sincere prayer that we, too, if we knew that our next breath would be our last, would write or say or sing or shout, “Credo! I believe!”

The Apostles’ Creed is ancient creed, the early forms of which reach back to the 2^nd century, that many churches the world over look to as a helpful and inspiring summary statement of the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

We are Baptist Christians and some Baptists are of the opinion that creeds have no place in our lives together. I would argue that creeds are helpful, historically-grounded, and unifying statements of faith that have been treasured by Baptists. What Baptists reject is (a) the elevation of any human statement to the level of scripture and/or (b) the imposition of man-made statements upon the people of God in an oppressive man. But there is a right use of creeds.

In fact, if you object to something like the Apostles’ Creed you may find it interesting to know that Baptist history does indeed show some Baptists turning to the creeds as helpful tools. For instance, some of the General Baptists of England, in 1678, included in their “Orthodox Creed” the following article:

Article XXXVIII

Of the Three Creeds.

The Three Creeds, (viz.) Nicene Creed, Athanasius his Creed, and the Apostles Creed, (as they are commonly called) ought thoroughly to be received and believed. For we believe they may be proved by most undoubted Authority of holy Scripture, and are necessary to be understood of all Christians; and to be instructed in the knowledge of them, by the Ministers of Christ, according to the Analogie of Faith, recorded in sacred Scriptures (upon which these Creeds are grounded), and Catechistically opened, and expounded in all Christian families, for the edification of Young and Old; which might be a means to prevent Heresy in doctrine and practice, these Creeds containing all things in a brief manner, that are necessary to be known, fundamentally, in order to our Salvation…

Well, that is quite a statement! I believe these earlier Baptists were correct! There is more.

In 1905, the Baptist World Alliance had their inaugural meeting in London. There, under the guidance of the BWA president, they joined together for the recitation of The Apostles’ Creed. The BWA would do so again in 2005 in their meeting in Birmingham, England.[2]

Baptist theologian Steve Harmon, quoting Keith Parker’s Baptists in Europe, has pointed out that “the first paragraph of the confession adopted in 1977 by German-speaking Baptist unions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland ‘presupposes the Apostles’ Creed as a common confession of Christendom’…and the initial paragraph of the confession approved by the Swedish-Speaking Baptist Union of Finland in 1979 ‘accepts the Apostolic Creed as the comprehensive creed for the union.’”[3] James Leo Garrett has further pointed out that the “latest declaration by European Baptists recognizes the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Symbol of Chalcedon.”[4]

On occasion one hears the protest against Baptist use of Creeds that Baptists hold to “no creed but the Bible.” But this statement needs to be rightly understood. Yes, Baptists adhere to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, the scriptures alone. But Baptist theologian James Leo Garrett has persuasively argued that sola scriptura (scripture alone) does not mean nuda scriptura (naked scripture) but rather means suprema scriptura (the scriptures as supreme).[5] Put another way, Baptists do not believe it is wrong to draft and recite and use confessions and creeds that are summaries of the faith. We simply believe it is always wrong to elevate any such creed or confession to the level of the scriptures. These creeds may serve as helps (thus scripture is not denuded) but they must always be subservient to and judged by the supreme standard of scripture (thus suprema scriptura). We intend to judge the Apostles’ Creed in the light of the scriptures which are our supreme norm and guide.

We begin with the first word, “Credo,” “I believe.”

Continue reading →

Adam Harwood of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary has written a very helpful and insightful and good systematic theology that I would like to recommend. I do not normally do this, but I was a bit irritated by one negative review (not, I hasten to add, because it was negative—it’s a free country!—but because of the nature of the reviewer’s arguments) so I posted a bit of a review/response here.  Harwood’s books is a great contribution to Baptist systematics. I’d encourage you to get a copy!

The Fall 2022 issue of the Southwestern Journal of Theology came out yesterday. The issue is dedicated to the legacy of James Leo Garrett Jr., the late Southwestern Seminary theologian. It consists largely of the papers presented at the 2021 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Forth Worth, Texas. My own presentation is in the journal. Check it out here if you feel so inclined.