Miscellanies 19: On Social Justice and the Gospel

I have often heard that the gospel is the basis for social justice. The reasoning usually goes something like this:

1. The gospel is Jesus, the ultimate exemplar, saving those who cannot save themselves.
2. Social justice is saving those who cannot save themselves.
3. Therefore social justice is based on the gospel.

The problem with (3) is that (1) is false.

I'm reminded of a book R.C. Sproul wrote not too long ago called Saved from What?. The description reads:

Imagine that you approach someone who has never stepped inside a church or paused long enough on a religious channel to understand what the preacher was shouting about. This is the case for many Americans regarding the question, "Are you saved?" The initial response might be, "Saved from what?" It's a logical reply. Yet too many of us as Christians don't really know how to answer that question--for the ones we are trying to witness to, or for ourselves.

Indeed! The gospel is NOT simply that Jesus saves us. The gospel is that Jesus saves us from something, namely the just wrath of God which is the penalty for our sin. Granted, it is beyond dispute that social justice involves saving those who cannot save themselves. But the question is "From what?" The answer to that question makes all the difference in the world (quite literally).

I submit that social justice involves saving those who cannot save themselves from those who've broken the second table of the moral law by not loving their neighbors as themselves. In other words, social justice is based on the law (in its second use as counted by Calvin) not the gospel. Since God has made his law known, by nature, to all human beings without exception, Christian and pagan individuals have a basis for co-belligerency in this arena, which is a good thing. But it's also the reason for some bad tendencies within the church.

First, I think it is why many Christians who raise the social justice banner find themselves attracted to ecumenism based on confessional minimalism (i.e. reducing visible church unity to a few basic doctrines). Here's the train of thought: If the basis of social justice is the gospel, and we are basically unified with the ______ church on the gospel (after all, who doesn't want to help the helpless?), then we should link arms (read: communions) as co-belligerents. Again, even if a right understanding of the gospel is granted, this is wrongheaded thinking because the gospel is not the basis of social justice.

Second, by failing to make the above distinction, Christians who raise the social justice banner fail to see how the church as the church could refrain from social activism without betraying her identity as the place of the gospel. But ironically, the opposite is the case. By failing to make the above distinction the church betrays her identity as the place of the gospel by becoming the place of law enforcement (i.e. the law in its second use). And to add irony to irony, oftentimes the fiercest enforcement that occurs is against those church members who don't seem to be as pumped about law enforcement, at least when judged according to the prevailing enforcers' opinions.

Third, by failing to make the above distinction, some Christians in America unknowingly reduce the religion of the church to a nationalistic moralism, which is more akin to late 18th century deism than biblical Christianity. This only serves to confuse the loyalties of church members, so that some see political affiliation as determinative of Christian spirituality, ironically undermining the same.

So what should we do? First, we should reclaim the Reformed distinction between the law and the gospel, which includes the classic understanding of the three uses of the law. Second, we should reclaim the Reformed distinction between the church and the world. Third, we should recognize that these two distinctions are vitally connected to one another.

Only after recognizing these truths will the church be empowered to be the church God has called her to be, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments, and exercising spiritual discipline for the gathering and perfecting of the elect. Then Christians will be truly empowered to live as good citizens of the world, engaged in issues related to social justice in whatever vocation they are called.

Heidelcast: On Federal Vision Theology in the PCA

Here

Wordsworth: "Ode to Duty"

From William Wordsworth's "Ode to Duty":

Serene will be our days and bright,
And happy will our nature be,
When love is an unerring light,
And joy its own security.
And they a blissful course may hold
Even now, who, not unwisely bold,
Live in the spirit of this creed;
Yet seek thy firm support, according to their need.

I, loving freedom, and untried;
No sport of every random gust,
Yet being to myself a guide,
Too blindly have reposed my trust:
And oft, when in my heart was heard
Thy timely mandate, I deferred
The task, in smoother walks to stray;
But thee I now would serve more strictly, if I may.
Through no disturbance of my soul,
Or strong compunction in me wrought,
I supplicate for thy control;
But in the quietness of thought:
Me this unchartered freedom tires;
I feel the weight of chance-desires:
My hopes no more must change their name,
I long for a repose that is ever the same.

Though Wordsworth is reflecting on a concept of natural law in keeping with Deism, one may also read his work according to biblical definitions, in which case this poem speaks beautifully to the law in its third use.

Darryl Hart: On the Spirituality of the Church

Here.

Missional or Confessional?

Last night I asked my students a question. If we were to see Jesus walking around today, would he look like a movie star? Would Jesus be cool?

Here's a couple interesting posts related to that question:

Uncool People Need Jesus Too

and

How about 'in it but not of it' for a change

Eugene Peterson: The Subversive Pastor

Eugene Peterson's book The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction was recommended to me about three years ago. I've just now gotten around to reading it. Though I don't agree with Peterson on every point, his book is very good in many respects. I especially appreciate his understanding of the other-worldly nature of pastoral ministry. I happily recommend it to all Pastors and Ruling Elders.

In a chapter entitled "The Subversive Pastor" Peterson writes:

As a Pastor, I don't like being viewed as nice but insignificant. I bristle when a high-energy executive leaves the place of worship with the comment, "This was wonderful, Pastor, but now we have to get back to the real world, don't we?" I had thought we were in the most-real world, the world revealed as God's, a world believed to be invaded by God's grace and turning on the pivot of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The executive's comment brings me up short: he isn't taking this seriously. Worshiping God is marginal to making money. Prayer is marginal to the bottom line. Christian salvation is a brand preference.

I bristle and want to assert my importance. I want to force the recognition of the key position I hold in the economy of God and in his economy if only he knew it.

Then I remember that I am a subversive. My long-term effectiveness depends on my not being recognized for who I really am. If he realized that I actually believe the American way of life is doomed to destruction, and that another kingdom is right now being formed in secret to take its place, he wouldn't be at all pleased. If he knew what I was really doing and the difference it was making, he would fire me....

America and suburbia and the ego compose my parish. Most of the individuals in this amalgam suppose that the goals they have for themselves and the goals God has for them are the same. It is the oldest religious mistake: refusing to countenance any real difference between God and us, imagining God to be a vague extrapolation of our own desires, and then hiring a priest to manage the affairs between self and the extrapolation. And I, one of the priests they hired, am having none of it (27-28).

The Faith of a Child

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them (Mark 10:13-16).

On March 23, 2005 my son Cole was born a bit earlier than expected, so he spent a little time in the NICU while his lungs finished developing. The first words I spoke to him were, "God loves you and I do too." I have been sharing Christ with him ever since. Each time I've called him to faith he's either rejected it by demonstrating physical discomfort (e.g. arched back, pushing me away, etc.), by telling me "I don't want to talk about that," or by ignoring me altogether. It reminds me a lot of his time in the NICU, except then he was struggling for physical rather than spiritual breath.

This past Sunday afternoon Feb. 28, 2010 Cole and I spent some time reading together as has become our habit. We're almost done with C. S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Finishing our time in Narnia with the children meeting Aslan and Peter's first battle, Cole rested a bit while I completed a book I've been reading lately.

About thirty minutes later Cole hopped into my lap, and we studied the first thirty-four questions of First Catechism: Teaching Children Bible Truths, the last few questions being about the covenant of life, our first parents, and sin. Cole did very well. His memory amazes me. When we finished I reached for my Bible to spend some time alone with the Lord. Cole went to get a snack and when he returned he asked me to "preach to him like at church." I began reading from John 6 to him while he ate, stopping along the way to talk with him about what it means to eat Jesus' flesh, drink Jesus' blood, come to Jesus, and believe in Jesus. When we got to the first of four "I will raise him up on the last day" teachings, we talked about sin, death, and the resurrection. He told me he wanted to believe in Jesus so that he would live forever. I asked if he believed the words of the Bible were God's words to him and if he believed Jesus died for him? He said, "I guess I do believe!" with great joy and exuberance. I said, "Well we need to pray together and thank God the Father for drawing you to his Son." Then I lead him to pray, "Father, thank you for drawing me to believe in Jesus. Thank you for saving me from my sins and giving me eternal life. Amen."

He asked me to continue reading the Bible. Each time we came to a "I will raise him up on the last day" teaching he jumped up and celebrated, rejoicing in the fact that he believed and would live forever in heaven with Jesus and Daddy. Along the way Mama had made her way into the living room. Cole cut his eyes over to her and pointed, saying rather matter-of-factly, "You've got to believe too, Mama." Mama assured him that she did believe and asked him, "What about Joanna?" (his two year old sister). He said, "Joanna won't believe, she can't believe." I think he meant that she was too young to understand. I asked him, "Why can't Joanna believe?" He said, "She just can't." I said, "I think she can and maybe she already does. She brings the Bible to me often, opens it up, and says, 'Read God.' Also, when we have family worship she prays and sings praises to God." Cole said, "Maybe she does believe! Yay! We can all be a family in heaven!"

I held Cole and prayed over him, gratefully rejoicing in his confession and asking our heavenly Father to continue protecting him and nourishing him in the faith.

What a day!

Miscellanies 18: On Union and the Ordo Salutis

It seems to me that the main issue at stake in the debate on the place of union in the ordo salutis is the nature of justifying faith.

Some (Shepherd, FV, et al.) are understanding union in a way that others see as undermining the distinction between justifying faith and obedience, justification and sanctification. For them, practically speaking, union is a link in the chain preceding justifying faith. Therefore the faith that justifies is essentially obedient, making faith and obedience logically concurrent.

Others have reacted to that theory, seeing it as an undermining of crucial distinctions that are central to the gospel. Their understanding is that justifying faith is NOT essentially an obedient faith but is only a trusting (i.e. notitia, assensus, fiducia) in Christ's obedience. This is the historic Protestant tenet sola fide. It is not the character but the object of faith that justifies. The understanding that love is an essential aspect of justifying faith is wholly different from the understanding that love necessarily follows justifying faith.

I was thinking about this yesterday and came to this conclusion. If union is an overarching salvation principle and not simply a link in the ordo salutis chain, then we must understand it to have different facets in keeping with each link in the chain. Otherwise it loses its overarching character. In other words, simply put "union" is another way of saying the relationship between God and the sinner at each stage of the application of redemption, a relationship that changes along the way. It has certain characteristics at points that it doesn't have at other points, looking something like this:

1. Effectual Call (union in the sense that God salvifically communicates to us his love for us in Christ, meaning he convicts us of sin so that we die with Christ and then raises us to new life in Christ [i.e. regeneration])
2. Saving Faith (union in the sense of trusting in God's love for us in Christ, which is Christ's obedience on our behalf, the gospel)
3. Justification (union in the sense of our sins being pardoned and Christ's righteousness being credited to us unto reconciliation with God)
4. Adoption (union in the sense of our loving God as obedient children, which is communion with him as our heavenly Father)
5. Sanctification (union in the sense of his progressively nourishing, disciplining, and growing us into more conformity with his character, putting our sin to death and that we might live unto him)
6. Glorification (union in the sense of the consummation of the establishment of God's dwelling place with man forever so that we are purified and no impurity may ever enter again)
   

Rather than something like this:

1. Union (being united to Christ by his Spirit, which includes love for God)
   
2. Saving Faith
3. Justification
4. Adoption
5. Sanctification
6. Glorification
   

Understanding union rightly, as an overarching principle in the ordo salutis, doesn't militate against sola fide. But understanding union as its own link in the chain can create problems.

Is this accurate or have I constructed a straw man?

Miscellanies 17: On Generalizing Anecdotes

Have you ever noticed that generalizations based on personal anecdotes are often contradictory? Have you ever had two people give you advice based on their experience, both of which sounded plausible but were completely opposite? I know you have. I have too. Let me offer this personal anecdote to illustrate my point. :-)

Along the way of training for pastoral ministry, I've heard many well-intentioned men say, "I never wanted to be ________. In fact I ran from it. I had neither the gifts nor desire to do it. But God wouldn't let me go, so eventually I found myself doing ________. Therefore I know he's called me to it." I've also heard many men say just the opposite. "From as far back as I can remember I wanted to be a ________. It's been hard work to get here, but God's been faithful all along the way, and he's gifted me for it. Therefore I know he's called me to _________."

Now there's no problem with either experience per se. But if one succumbs to the temptation to extrapolate general principles from them, then we run into big problems. The truth is God's call is an aspect of his providence, which is a mystery to us. Therefore when we scramble to understand and explain it in order to legitimize our work or encourage someone else in theirs, we always run afoul. Rather than constructing our own personal eschatological charts to explain exactly when and how the rapture of God's call came to us, perhaps we should simply say, "I know God has called me to _______ because I am doing it."

Personal anecdotes are good illustrative devices but we (especially those called to preach and teach) must be careful not to generalize our own experiences as normative. To do that is to claim to know what only God knows, which is idolatry. We must look to Scripture alone for those sorts of norms, submitting the interpretation of our experiences to the God of providence.

Miscellanies 16: On the Unity of the Church

From the PCA Position Paper "Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Biblical Basis of Church Union":

The basic principle that must be agreed to in the arrangements of any meaningful union will be the wholehearted submission to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God, with the understanding that the directives of that Word will be over-riding criterion guiding all of the actions of the body. There must be agreement as to the functions of the body. The primary function of the church is to worship. Worship involves the acknowledging of "the true God as God and worshipping and glorifying Him accordingly". This means worshipping only by such exercises as He has revealed in His Word.

The second criterion of the true unity of the body then, will manifest itself in confession. One of the blessed fruits of the Protestant Reformation is the profusion of confessions. Those who had come to understand the truth of the gospel wanted the world to understand what the Bible had to say. To that end they formulated concise statements of what they believed the Bible taught. Do we confess the same teaching? Do we witness to the same truth? "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). We include those who by their history have demonstrated a genuine interest in and devotion to that understanding of the Scriptures that we call the Reformed Faith.

Here we have the teaching that visible church unity is ultimately based on our confession of the truth of the Word of God and whole-hearted submission to it, both of which God causes among his people by his Spirit. Thus the first criterion for measuring church unity is our "worshipping only by such exercises as He has revealed in His Word" (i.e. the Regulative Principle of Worship). The second is our confession of faith. Both are vitally connected.

Also, notice the perspective of this paper on why the Reformed Confessions were written. "Those who had come to understand the truth of the gospel wanted the world to understand what the Bible had to say." In other words, one reason for the existence of the confessions was that the truth of the gospel might be spread to the world. A robust confessionalism does not impede evangelism but rather serves it. Indeed to confess the faith once for all handed down is to evangelize.

Jim Cassidy: On the PCUSA and Israel

Here is Jim Cassidy's recent post on the PCUSA and Israel. An excerpt reads:

From what I gather from the article is that the conservatives in the PCUSA are pro-Israel and the liberals are anti-Israel with regards to the conflict in the Middle East.

The saddest part of this whole debate in the PCUSA is that its happening at all. This is telling for where the PCUSA is at. It is an unfortunate day when this is even an issue for the conservatives in the PCUSA.

I mean, why in the world is the church even discussing this?

That’s the first question. The second is this: why do the conservatives believe that being on the side of Israel is to be on the side of righteousness?

I mean, I suppose if this were the Southern Baptist Convention I can understand. After all, a hallmark of dispensationalist theology has been – because of its premillennialism – a pro-Isreali politics. But this is the PCUSA here . . . what gives?

I think that a partial explanation can be found in the fact that even the conservatives in the PCUSA are really so far away from historical Reformed theology that to call them conservative is to bend the meaning of the word beyond all reasonable recognition.

Further explanation may be in order here. I actually think that the left wing and right wing of the PCUSA have far more in common than they think. And that commonality is what we might call New Schoolism. New Schoolism can be characterized by at least two points. One, an all consuming desire to be relevant among the culture and society in which the church finds herself. Second, a low-to-no doctrine of the spirituality of the church.

Heidelcast: On the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience

Here.

Reason for Amillennialism #1

If God is progressively redeeming all of the created order right now, why do bears still want to eat me with the same ferocity?

The Muppets on God's Eternal Decree

I'll be using this tomorrow in my Sunday School class on God's eternal decree and causation:

Miscellanies 15: Problems with Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck

I just read Jan Veenhof's essay Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck, trans. by Albert M. Wolters. I appreciate Bavinck's critique of Roman Catholicism's Neoplatonic "grace supplements nature" thesis. As he points out, Scripture teaches that grace is God's answer to sin rather than an answer to a substantial insufficiency in the nature he originally declared "good." Bavinck instead teaches that "grace restores nature" in an ethical sense.

Grace does not serve to take man up into a supernatural order, but to liberate him from sin. Grace is not opposed to nature, but only to sin. Properly speaking, it was not necessary for Adam before the Fall, but has become necessary only because of sin; therefore, it is not necessary absolutely, but only per accidens. The physical opposition of natural and supernatural is replaced by the ethical one of sin and grace (13).

On the other end of the spectrum, Bavinck criticizes Pietism's Gnostic-like tendency to see "grace opposing nature," which leads to separatism and asceticism--again, thinking of nature in a substantial sense.

So Christianity did not come into the world to condemn and put under the ban everything that existed beforehand and elsewhere, but quite the opposite, to purify from sin everything that was; and thus to cause it to answer again to its own nature and purpose (17).

Veenhof goes on to show that Bavinck maintained the historic Reformed distinction between the ecclesiastical and civil spheres of God's sovereignty in the world. He then concludes with some practical consequences of Bavinck's thought writing:

We can observe that in this conception the independence of the different spheres is fully honored, while at the same time the salutary effect of the gospel in all these spheres is emphatically underscored. Family, society, and state arise out of creation, according to Bavinck, and exist by virtue of gratia communis. Bavinck evidently agrees fully with Kuyper's idea of sphere sovereignty. It is also his conviction that sovereignty in these "organic life-spheres" descends directly from God to created reality and that each has a God-given authority of its own (26).

So far I am tracking as long as "the salutary effect of the gospel in all these spheres" is understood to be at best indirect. However, Veenhof continues:

This authority does not in the least imply that the spheres in question have nothing to do with the gospel. On the contrary, they have been corrupted by sin and therefore need the word of God as rule and guide (26-27).

At this point I see a couple problems, which may or may not be there (I am open to correction). First, it seems that "the gospel" has been equivocated with "the word of God." This is problematic because the word of God includes both law and gospel not just gospel. The civil sphere of human society is governed by the law alone. It's government is not directly impacted by the gospel. God's words to Noah recorded in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed," are neither the gospel nor based on the gospel. They announce a penalty based on the the second table of the moral law. The civil government has been instituted by God and enabled by his common grace to administer justice not redemptive grace. Second, it seems that given the civil sphere is governed by the moral law apart from the gospel, and the moral law is revealed to man naturally (c.f. Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15), then the civil sphere does not "need the word of God as a rule and guide." Only the church needs the word as a rule and guide, which includes the law in its third use (i.e. the law administered in light of the gospel).

Where in the World is the Church?

I just finished Dr. Michael Horton's book Where in the World is the Church?: A Christian View of Culture and Your Role in It. Including a summary of H. Richard Niebuhr's famous five ways of conceiving church and culture issues, an accurate yet brief historical theological/philosophical overview, two chapters on the arts, a penetrating (and convicting) analysis of contemporary culture, and a thoroughgoing appeal to recover the Reformed distinction between the common and the sacred for the sake of both, I highly recommend Horton's book to anyone wanting an introduction to the study of church and culture.

A Glaring Inconsistency

In Dr. Hart's latest post he points out a glaring inconsistency in the belief and practice of some cultural transformationalists. Here's the contradiction:

1. The calling of the church is to Christianize society.
2. Society includes civil government.
3. The church is NOT called to Christianize the civil government (per the version of the WCF adopted by American Presbyterians). 

(1) and (3) cannot be true at the same time. If one believes (1), he should also believe the church is called to Christianize civil government. If he believes (3), he should not believe the church is called to Christianize society. Personally, I believe the latter is the biblical teaching. While I would love to see every civil office-holder confess Christ as Lord, I would bristle if the President's State of the Union was a Christian sermon.

Some Funny Quotes

A couple books I'm reading right now are Michael Horton's Where in the World is the Church?: A Christian View of Culture and Your Role in It and Darryl Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham. I am enjoying them both immensely. Here are funny quotes from both:

Horton writes of the early church's understanding of its role in the wider culture:

It is difficult to have a terribly optimistic view of one's impact on culture when being thrown to the lions (41).

Hart writes of the downturn in evangelical "success" after Regan's election in 1980:

Electoral politics proved to be a difficult arena in which to persuade the breadth of the American public that the narrow way of faithfulness was best (14). 

Online Primers for the Two Kingdoms and Natural Law

• http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/01.06.10DVDnl2k.mp3 
• http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/12.07.09DVD.mp3 
• http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/10.15.09DVDBioethics.mp3 
• http://www.wscal.edu/resources/video/index.php 
• http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/vandrunen-natural-law-two-kingdoms-office-hours/ 
• http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/christ-and-culture-reading-list/ 
• http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/once-more-resources-on-the-two-kingdoms/ 
• http://reformedforum.org/he1/  
• http://media.9marks.org/2009/08/01/being-faithful-in-a-secular-word-with-darryl-hart

R. Scott Clark: "Is Reformed Confessionalism Impious?"

Dr. Clark continues answering Dr. Frame's Review of RRC.

Attempted Axiom: On Labels

Christianity without labels is Christianity without history.

or

Christianity without labels is not Christianity.

VanDrunen: What do recent Reformed thinkers, the Radical Reformation, and Brian Mclaren have in common?

I recently received Dr. David VanDrunen's new book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. It is my first exposure to VanDrunen's work, and I am enjoying it very much. I've found this work to be, among other things, substantive, thorough, precise, clear, and very well written. I ran across this insight early in the book. VanDrunen writes:

Another example [of an influential recent trend in broader, ecumenical Christian thought which seems remarkably friendly to the last century of Reformed social thought] comes from the recent revival in interest in the social tenets of the radical reformation, historically associated with the Anabaptists and Mennonites. The most influential voice here is surely that of Stanley Hauerwas, though himself a Methodist. A perspective grounded in the radical reformation would not ordinarily be associated with a perspective looking to Calvin and the magisterial reformation for inspiration, but they in fact share remarkable similarities. Hauerwas was influenced not only by Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder but also by the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, whose tour de force, After Virtue,  subjected modern, post-Enlightenment, liberal, secular, value-free Western society to a withering critique. MacIntyre concluded that the autonomous individuals within it share no common story or telos and therefore have no resources from which to draw in order to have genuine moral discussions about anything. Not only has Hauerwas picked up on such analysis in condemning the quest for freedom and autonomy in a morally fragmented world scarred by capitalism and materialism, but he has also rejected, as inimical to Christian faith, the idea of a universal ethic or common morality grounded in natural law. Nevertheless, he has called for Christian activism in the world, but in a way peculiar to Christianity. The church, he says, is to live out its existence as a community of faith and hence display to the world how the peaceful kingdom of Christ provides an alternative to a politics built upon violence and falsehood. Hence Hauerwas voices familiar contemporary Reformed themes in rejecting a natural law social ethic, sharply critiquing modern thought and practice, promoting social activism, and calling on Christians to have the ways of the kingdom of Christ shape all of their activity in the church and in the world. Hauerwas has many admirers that have picked up and developed such themes, including those associated with the New Perspective on Paul and scholars in American evangelical circles without historic connection to the Mennonite theology. The work of Brian McLaren, a chief spokesperson for the so-called emerging church movement, is also similar in many important respects (7-9).

Sixteen Reasons Not to Watch the Superbowl

I stole this from Darryl Hart's blog Old Life (and tweaked it just a bit).

16. Remember the Sabbath day.
15. Keep it holy.
14. You have six days for all your work.
13. The Sabbath belongs to God.
12. Don’t work on it.
11. Don’t let your son work on it.
10. Or your daughter.
9. Or football players.
8. Or cheerleaders.
7. Or advertizing executives.
6. Or broadcasters.
5. For God made the world in six days.
4. Then he rested on the Sabbath.
3. For that reason he blessed the Sabbath.
2. And made it a holy day.

And the number one reason not to watch the Super Bowl. . . .

1. The COWBOYS aren’t playing.

Nick Batzig: On Biblical Numerology and the Sabbath

Here is an excellent post from Nick on biblical numerology and the Sabbath Day, among other things.

Martin Downes: On Contending for the Faith

Here is an excellent post from Martin Downes outlining the two kinds of defenses the church has against heresies, the external and the internal. On the internal defense, he writes:

Without this internal delight in the truth the external defense is certain to crumble. It is not theological statements that preserve the truth so much as men filled with the Spirit and wisdom, taught by God to follow the pattern of sound words and able to guard the good deposit.

For some churches and denominations the vibrant confessional testimony of their forefathers in the faith became no more than a museum piece, a relic that gave witness to what was once believed before the church moved on with the times. The truth remained the truth, even if you were told to look at it behind a glass case, but long gone was the atmosphere of orthodoxy.

Ron Steel: "Mercenary Mindset"

This morning my pastor Ron Steel preached a sermon from Matthew 20:1-6 called "Mercenary Mindset." This is the best treatment of the "Laborers in the Vineyard" parable I've ever encountered. Pastor Steel really did a masterful job connecting the passage with the immediately preceding passage on the rich young ruler. I was well-fed. You can access the audio and video files here.

O. Palmer Robertson: Distinguishing the Action of Christian Individuals from the Action of the Church in Broader Social Engagement

In 1988 PCA Teaching Elder O. Palmer Robertson wrote "A Protest in Response to the 'Summary Positions' Paper on Church/State Relations." He concludes point five writing:

Indeed, as members of the kingdom of Christ that has come, is coming and is yet to come, the Christian as an individual and in cooperation with others should involve himself in advancing the truth of Christ in every area of life. The Church should never shrink from applying the truth of God's Word to every issue of life. But when the church as the church takes on characteristics that distort its proper marks before the world as they are expressed in the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline, then its distinctive role in the world will be blurred.

Brian Hough: On Parents, Children, and Prayer

Prayer is a means of redemptive grace God has ordained for his people. John Calvin called it the chief exercise of faith. As a young father and Pastor to Families with Youth, I am more and more thankful for this blessed divine provision every day. Also, I am often convicted at my lack of faith, demonstrated in my failure to pray. God loves it when his children cry out to worship him in prayer! Here is an excellent post from fellow PCA Pastor Brian Hough encouraging parents to regularly pray with their children.

Lane Keister: Encouraging Confessional Churches

Here. He begins:

I get really tired of people complaining about the Westminster Standards. These people want us to broaden our horizons beyond confessional boundaries so that we can be more ecumenical. I would like to ask these people, aren’t there enough generally evangelical denominations? . . .

Christ, Kingdom, and Culture Conference Videos

Videos from the recent Christ, Kingdom, and Culture conference at Westminster Seminary California are now posted online. I am looking forward to viewing these!

[HT: Heidelblog]

Miscellanies 14: Should Churches Promote Movies?

I was recently approached by a promoter of the movie The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry with the request to promote the movie in the local church I serve. I haven't viewed the movie yet. It may be very well done. But I wanted to share my response to the request to promote the movie.

I first wrote:

Thank you for taking time to write Twin Oaks PC about this. You are obviously excited about the movie and tenacious in promoting it. That is commendable. However, it is my understanding that this sort of thing falls outside the singular mandate Christ gave his church. He has called his church to be about the work of extending his kingdom by the teaching and embracing of the doctrine of the Gospel, the administration of his ordinances, and the performing of public worship in purity (Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.4). The production or viewing of movies, while wonderful means of common grace (I enjoy movies often), are not included in this mandate. Therefore, I would have to decline your request to promote this movie as a church, using resources given for her special redemptive work.

Nonetheless, I would be willing to view it and give you my feedback, if you'd like.

The promoter then graciously offered me a free viewing online and respectfully asked me to clarify the reasons why I thought the church should not be in the business of movie promotions. I responded again:

My unwillingness to lead the church in the promotion of a movie like the Sperry movie (I would distinguish it from video recordings of lectures or sermons) is this: The church's mandate is to preach the Word, administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline (basically stated in WCF 25 and 30). These are sometimes called the three marks of the church. It is through these three means that God gathers and nurtures his people from among the nations. Since the making and promoting of movies like the Sperry movie is not included in this mandate, it should not be done by the church.

Individual Christians may make, promote, and enjoy movies as they live out their lives in the common realm (i.e. the world). But according to Scripture, the sacred realm (i.e. the church) is distinct from the common, the distinction being governed by the three marks.

There is, of course, some overlap between the sacred and common realms. They are distinct but not separate. For instance, teaching elders may surely, with Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, make use of common things in their teaching, thus sanctifying them unto God's service. This happens every time we consecrate bread and wine for the Lord's Supper or when preachers illustrate their text using personal anecdotes. Also, movies might include themes, messages, or scenes from the sacred realm. I see this most often in wedding and funeral scenes. These examples are, however, quite different from the church as the church actually making and/or promoting things which are essentially common (e.g. bread, wine, a book of personal anecdotes, movies, etc.). I believe it is incumbent upon every officer of the church, and particularly her teaching elders, to be very careful not to blur the lines between the sacred and the common.

I hope this is helpful for you. I would be happy to continue exploring these issues with you. Let me know if I can clarify any further.

I shared my response with my friend Jared Nelson to see if my thinking was on target. He summarized what I was trying to say very well writing:

I’m taking it that your main point might be summarized as: As an individual, I might see a movie and recommend it to friends. But when functioning in the role of a minister, I will promote and require my people to attend to the preached word, the visible word of the sacrament, and prayer but will not promote or require a movie (or tv show, or yoga position or cola product) for their spiritual formation.

Exactly!

Article on Youth Ministry

Here. And an excerpt:

Even in the church, we have established a pattern of perpetual regress that is tearing down the last vestiges of maturity that our fathers laboured to achieve. Evangelical churches are honouring divisions that have existed in our culture for less than a century – divisions which have no basis in either Scripture or common sense. These divisions breed immaturity because they hinder young people from associating with, and learning from, their elders.

Rather than admonishing our young people with Paul’s mandate, “Flee youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22), we provide a forum for youthful lusts to be pursued. We have compromised standards in the name of relevance.

We must therefore reject the appalling notion of the model youth minister as a recently graduated extrovert who looks and acts just like a high schooler himself. Responsible youth ministry in the church involves teaching and exhorting parents to raise their children Biblically (Deuteronomy 6:7; Ephesians 6:4). . . .

Scripture clearly places the responsibility for child rearing on fathers: “And you fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1 – 4). Many parents believe that they are “doing their job” by seeing their children off to a youth meeting. Most do little or nothing more. Fathers are responsible for directly overseeing their children in spiritual matters.

Effective youth ministry is the father’s task; he has the responsibility to establish a godly atmosphere in the home. Fathers must be leaders in worship, prayer, reading and studying the Bible and in fellowship with other saints.

Fathers, through abdication, are bringing their children up in practical atheism.

As a father of two children, a four-year old and a two-year old, and a pastor to families with youth this article is quite convicting.

David Strain: A Heuristic Syllogism on the Two Kingdoms

The basic argument of Two Kingdom Theology is this:

(1) Jesus' kingdom is not advanced or defended by the sword (John 18:36; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:12).

(2) And God has ordained the civil magistrate to maintain order and enforce justice by the sword (Rom. 13:4; 1 Pet. 2:13)

Since the ethics of Jesus' kingdom (i.e. the ecclesiastical, sacred realm) and the civil magistrate (i.e. the civil, common realm) are fundamentally unified (which is the basis for Christian participation in the common realm contra separatism) and the sacred and the common exist simultaneously, then . . .

(3) Therefore, there are two distinct kingdoms at work in the New Testament era (i.e. the ecclesiastical and the civil, the sacred and the common, Jesus' kingdom and the civil magistrate).

David Strain has posted a fuller presentation of this argument here.

Nick Batzig: On Justification in James 2

Here

Justin Taylor: On Media Saturation among Teens

Here

David Strain: On Sabbath Observance in the PCA

Here. And an excerpt:

Given that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms continue to be the subordinate standards of the PCA, even with exceptions being granted by presbyteries, it does not seem unreasonable to expect to find a higher degree of reverence for, and diligence in the practise of, Sabbath observance among us. My, albeit limited, observations thus far have not affirmed that expectation, sad to say. In fact, my perception is that, in the PCA at least, Westminster Sabbatarianism is a strange and little known and even less loved feature of Christian devotion.

David VanDrunen: On Natural Law and The Two Kingdoms

R. Scott Clark recently interviewed David VanDrunen on Office Hours. VanDrunen discussed issues from his new book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. I look forward to reading VanDrunen's new book soon.

Words of Institution and Eucharistic Prayer

This morning I had the responsibility to give the words of institution and Eucharistic prayer for the Lord's Supper during our worship service at Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church. Here's what I said:

The Lord Jesus Christ opened his great sermon on the mount saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt. 5:3-6). When we come to worship God according to his Word, we come impoverished. We come as receivers. We come to feed upon Christ. We come to ingest him in the depths of our soul. His body was offered up and his blood was spilled for us and for our salvation. Indeed Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever” (John 6:35, 53-59). We know that Jesus was not referring to a carnal eating and drinking because he said, “not as the fathers ate and died.” Instead he was referring to a spiritual eating, an eating that is no less real than carnal eating yet even more effective in that it nourishes us unto eternal life. Jesus has prepared his Table for us. As the Apostle tells us, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

This is the Lord’s Table. It is open to all those who are trusting in the finished work of Christ alone for their salvation, to all those who are communing members in good standing of this or any other church where the Gospel of Jesus Christ is truly preached. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Let us pray, Father we are thankful that you have gathered us now around the Table of your Son, because he offered himself up to you as our sacrifice of atonement. Would you also now grant by your Son’s mediation that the Holy Spirit would attend our eating of this bread and our drinking of this wine and so cause us to feast spiritually upon the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, being raised up to commune with him in the heavenly temple with great joy, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

2010 Spring Sunday School Schedule

This spring the subject of my Senior High Sunday School class will be The Doctrine of God, chapters 2-5 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Here's the schedule:

1. Doctrine of God: Introduction (Jan. 3)
2. Doctrine of God: The Attributes of God Part 1 (WCF 2.1) (Jan. 17)
3. Doctrine of God: The Attributes of God Part 2 (WCF 2.2) (Jan. 24)
4. Doctrine of God: The Trinity Part 1 (WCF 2.3) (Jan. 31)
5. Doctrine of God: The Trinity Part 2 (WCF 2.3) (Feb. 7)
6. Doctrine of God: God’s Eternal Decree and Causation (WCF 3.1) (Feb. 14)
7. Doctrine of God: God’s Eternal Decree and Foreknowledge (WCF 3.2) (Feb. 21)
8. Doctrine of God: Predestination and Foreordination (WCF 3.3-4) (Feb. 28)
9. Doctrine of God: Predestination unto Life (WCF 3.5-6) (Mar. 7)
10. Doctrine of God: Foreordination unto Death (WCF 3.7) (Mar. 14)
11. Doctrine of God: Predestination and Assurance (WCF 3.8) (Mar. 21)
12. Doctrine of God: Creation (WCF 4.1) (Mar. 28)
13. Doctrine of God: The Imago Dei (WCF 4.2a) (Apr. 4)
14. Doctrine of God: Natural Law and Commandment (WCF 4.2b) (Apr. 11)
15. Doctrine of God: Providence (WCF 5.1) (Apr. 18)
16. Doctrine of God: Providence and Causation (WCF 5.2-3) (Apr. 25)
17. Doctrine of God: Providence and Sin (WCF 5.4) (May 2)
18. Doctrine of God: Providence and Discipline (WCF 5.5) (May 9)
19. Doctrine of God: Providence and Hardening (WCF 5.6) (May 16)
20. Doctrine of God: Providence and Preservation (WCF 5.7) (May 23)
21. Doctrine of God: Conclusion (May 30)

Top Eleven Books of 2009

Here's a top eleven list of the books I read in 2009 (not counting re-reads):

1. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, R. Scott Clark
2. The Glory of Christ, John Owen
   
3. Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet, Jason Stellman
4. Risking the Truth: Handling Error in the Church, Martin Downes
   
5. On the First Day of the Week: God, the Christian, and the Sabbath, Iain D. Campbell
6. The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context, Robert Letham
7. Reformed Theology in America, ed. David Wells
   
8. Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism, D.G. Hart and John R. Muether
9. With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship, D.G. Hart and John R. Muether
10. The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, John Carrick
11. Calvin and the Sabbath: The Controversy of Applying the Fourth Commandment, Richard Gaffin