Miscellanies 21: Should Christians Observe the Passover Seder?

Last year I was asked to prepare an argument regarding the observance of Passover by Christians. Here's what I wrote:

SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THE PASSOVER SEDER?

Rev. M. Jay Bennett

Assistant Pastor

Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church

4-17-9

In my brief interaction with a few Christian fathers and brothers regarding this question I have concluded that New Testament (NT) Christians should not return to the Old Testament (OT) observance of Passover. My primary reason is this: I believe the observance of a distinctly OT worship service (i.e. seder) is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith as worshiping God in “any way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture” (21.1).

Primary Argument:

1. The ordinances of the OT, though united in substance as signs and seals of the one covenant of grace (WCF 27.1 and 27.5), are nonetheless distinguished from those of the NT (WCF, 7.5 and 7.6).
2. The observance of Passover (like circumcision) was a prescribed ordinance of OT worship (spoken of in WCF 7.5 as “the paschal lamb”).
3. The observance of Passover was abrogated and replaced by the observance of the Lord’s Supper, which is a prescribed ordinance of NT worship.
4. Therefore, the observance of Passover is not prescribed by God as a proper ordinance of NT worship.

Secondary Argument:

1. The contemporary Passover Seder largely includes additions/stipulations (e.g. the afikoman) which are not prescribed in the OT but were added during the intertestamental and post second-temple eras of Jewish history.
2. Therefore the contemporary Passover Seder is not prescribed by God as a proper way of OT or NT worship.

Possible Objection:

The NT church should observe the Passover Seder as a tutorial.

This objection fails in at least four respects: (1) It assumes a non sequitur, (2) It is self-defeating, (3) It succumbs to a sort of reductio ad absurdum, and (4) If the Passover includes the observance of the Lord’s Supper, it is a worship service de facto.

1. It assumes a non sequitur. The assumption is that observing the ritual is a way of gaining insights that simple teaching cannot afford. In other words, in order to gain a rich understanding of the ritual, one should observe it. This is not true. We could accomplish the same goal by offering a class on the significance of the Passover ritual without observing it.

2. It is self-defeating. This is true in three ways: (a) Defining characteristics of the Passover are implicitly denied, (b) The primary function of the Passover is implicitly denied, (c) The fulfillment of the Passover is implicitly denied.

a. A defining characteristic of the Passover is that it was a worship service. Therefore, to observe it as a simple tutorial is to redefine the thing itself (i.e. to change a defining characteristic of it). One may be observing something, but if it is not understood to be worship, it cannot be a biblical Passover. This same argument can also be seen in a typical limitation of the observance among Christians. To my knowledge Passover Seders observed by Christians do not typically include the slaughtering, roasting, and eating of a paschal lamb. The paschal lamb is a defining characteristic of the Passover. Again, one may be observing something, but if the slaughtering of a paschal lamb is not involved, it is not a biblical Passover. Either Passover is a worship service, which means it is not merely tutorial and therefore is not allowed, or it is tutorial, in which case it is not worship and is not therefore a proper observance.

b. The primary function of the Passover was to foresignify the first advent of Christ. Since Christ has already come, the ordinance cannot now fulfill its function of foresignification. Therefore, any observance of the Passover after Christ’s coming is an attempt to have the ordinance function in a way in which it was not designed, which is an implicit denial of its design.

c. Because the Passover was primarily a foresignification of a particular end (i.e. the coming of Christ), to continue its observance today is an implicit denial of that end. As the author of Hebrews says, “For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. . . . But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:18-19, 22-24).

3. It succumbs to a sort of reductio ad absurdum, namely, if we are willing to observe the Passover ritual in order to understand how it foresignified Christ, why then can we not observe all the rituals since they also foresignified Christ (WCF 7.5)? Why would we not be willing to perform a service of circumcision or sacrifice in order to learn about how they foresignified Christ?

4. If the Passover observance includes the observance of the Lord’s Supper, which is sometimes practiced along with contemporary Passover Seders among Christians, it is a worship service de facto. The Westminster divines understood that the only proper ordinary occasion for observing the sacraments is public worship. This is evident in that private masses are forbidden and only a minister of the Word lawfully ordained may dispense them with the appropriate words of institution. The only exceptions are extraordinary cases in which a communing church member cannot attend the ordinary public worship service. Nonetheless, even then, multiple officers and congregants should be present in order to constitute public worship.

Chief Concerns

Notwithstanding the violation of the RPW, which our tradition understands to be the idolatry of will-worship, I have three chief concerns about Christians observing Passover, each of which strikes at the basis of the very being of the visible church (i.e. Word and Sacrament). Those concerns are: (1) The sufficiency (i.e. fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy) of the Lord’s Supper is implicitly denied, (2) The sufficiency (i.e. fullness and clarity) of the revelation of God in the person of Christ is implicitly denied, and (3) The sufficiency (i.e. value and efficacy) of the work of Christ is implicitly denied.

1. The sufficiency (i.e. fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy) of the Lord’s Supper is implicitly denied. To observe an OT ordinance, which has been abrogated and replaced by a NT ordinance, is an implicit denial of the sufficiency of the NT ordinance that has replaced it, which, although “administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in [it], [the covenant] is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles”(WCF 7.6).
2. The sufficiency (i.e. fullness and clarity) of the revelation of God in the person of Christ is implicitly denied. To turn back to that which was but a shadow of the substance is an implicit denial of the sufficiency of the substance.
3. The sufficiency (i.e. value and efficacy) of the work of Christ is implicitly denied. To observe an OT ordinance, which is, when truly considered, a blood-letting ritual, implicitly undermines the value and efficacy of the blood of the Lamb of God, which was spilled with absolute finality at the cross.

Recommendation

Given the above argument, it is my recommendation that Passover Seders should not be observed by the NT church. Nonetheless, the Passover along with all OT worship practices should be explained and understood in light of the Christ they foresignified.

R. Scott Clark: On the Mystery of Children's Church

Here is an excellent post from Dr. Clark on the idea of children's "church." And an excerpt:

It’s hard to know where to start with this complex of problems. Obviously there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Sabbath. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of worship. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of baptismal vows and church membership. There’s a misunderstanding of Christian nurture and there’s a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian parenting. Other than these things, as they say, “it’s all good.”

Reason for Amillennialism #2

If God is progressively redeeming all of the created order right now, why do my children sin just as much as I did at their age?

Ryan McGraw: On Israel and the Church

Here is an EXCELLENT post on the nature of Israel and the church in the form of a catechism.

[HT: Nick Batzig]

The Federal Vision Peeking through the Keyhole of Roman Catholicism

Taylor Marshall who blogs at Canterbury Tales tells of his journey from the PCA to Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism via the Federal Vision here. Here's an excerpt:

Ultimately, I think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church.

Sean Lucas: On Converting to Rome

Sean Lucas has followed up Rick Phillips' post at the Ref21 Blog today with an excellent point on converting to Rome. Here's an excerpt:

When we forsake confessionalism (and its concomitant, biblical authority), then we are set adrift in a world of competing (and sectarian) truth claims. And that will be the case not only within Presbyterianism, but Baptist life, Anglicanism, Methodism, or any other "Protestant" denomination. We will then search for an authority that can provide a sure word in the midst of confusing, competing truth claims. And the only authority that has proved stable enough is the one provide by the Roman see and its apostolic succession.

Indeed! At the end of the day this was/is the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation.

Federal Vision Theology and Roman Catholcism

As I've studied the Federal Vision (FV) theology more seriously these last few months, I have seen a tendency toward Roman Catholicism within it. Several points of affinity are evident. Because Federal Vision theology rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture in favor of mono-covenantalism, rejects the imputation of Christ's active obedience, redefines saving faith as faithfulness (e.g. loyal faith), and affirms the enjoyment of redemptive grace for all those receiving water baptism, it tends...

1. To deny the Protestant tenet sola fide.
   
2. To deny Reformed/Calvinist soteriology.
3. To affirm Arminian soteriology.
   
4. To affirm baptismal regeneration.

It is common knowledge that those who hold to FV theology have converted to Roman Catholicism based on that theology. Today Rick Phillips posted another example of this phenomenon at the Ref21 blog.

Lane Keister: On Relating Truth and Love

Here is an excellent post by Lane Keister. He begins . . .

There are many folks out there who believe that unity is the fundamental responsibility of the church today. The basis for this is usually 1 John 4:8, 16, which verses declare that God is love. It is often argued that these verses in particular are some of the very few to make such a close identification of an attribute of God with the very essence of God. Aside from the problematic theology this entails (i.e., that of separating the other attributes of God from the essence of God), it is also misleading.

1 John 1:5 (HCSB) says this: “Now this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him.” The very same letter that declares that God is love also declares that God is light. What does John mean by this? He goes on to explain that light equals truth, and darkness equals lying (verse 6). And then comes the capstone, verse 7: “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” The unity, fellowship, and love which believers are to have (for we do not deny that God is love, and that Christians must imitate that love in a creaturely, redeemed manner) must be a fellowship in the light, in the truth.

Terry Johnson: "Children of Promise"

A friend just sent me a link to a recent article by Terry Johnson. Johnson begins by asking these questions:

Which is more important, the unity of the church or its purity? To which are we to give preference: love or truth, fellowship or doctrine?

You can read the rest of it here.

Wes White: The FV in the Siouxlands Presbytery

In 2006 at the 34th General Assembly the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) appointed an ad interim committee . . .

to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies which are causing confusion among our churches. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards (MGA 34:229-30).

In 2007 at the 35th General Assembly the "Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies" was submitted with nine declarations and five recommendations:

IV. Declarations

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

V. Recommendations

1. That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

3. That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

5. That the Ad Interim Study Committee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.

Since then actions have been taken in at least two Presbyteries regarding proponents of Federal Vision theology. One had to do with Teaching Elder (TE) Peter Leithart (Northwest Presbytery[NWP]). The other had to do with TE Greg Lawrence (Siouxlands Presbytery[SP]). Both actions are ongoing. Information on the NWP/Leithart action can be found here. Information on the SP/Lawrence action can be found here.

Related to the latter action, TE Wes White is receiving some serious heat from TE Lawrence and the Session of Christ Church, Mankato, MN. As I've read through the SP proceedings I have one thought: "What a mess!"

Pray for Wes and the SP. Pray that the SP will demonstrate a high regard for the process spelled out in the BCO and that all those involved will be focused on the peace and purity of the church.

Jason Stellman: On R2K and Social Justice

As I read and talk with those calling the visible church (as distinguished from individual believers and their children) to engage in social activism I keep coming back to the same thought: aren't we really just talking about loving our neighbors as ourselves? You know...the second table of the moral law?

I realize this is a total buzz-kill for those strung out on the excitement of redeeming everything from soup to nuts. Believe me, I've watched eyes glaze over as I begin to explain the three uses of the law and then widen as I explain how pagans are just as able to fulfill the second table as Christians, in a civil sense of course. Truth may not always be exciting or empowering, but it is always revealing.

Jason Stellman offers six Two Kingdom propositions related to social justice here. And the first is...you guessed it:

1. All calls to “social action” must henceforth be reworded as calls to just love our neighbors without talking about it so much.

I realize that telling people to love others doesn’t sound nearly as catchy and seemingly-progressive as “working for social justice,” but at the same time it doesn’t suffer from delusions of grandeur, either. In other words, I can help my neighbor jumpstart his car, but I can’t resolve the plague of harsh working conditions endured by the people who made it.

Danny Simpson: On Divine Transcendence, Immanence, and Worship

God is both transcendent (i.e. in spatial terms, above) and immanent (i.e. in spatial terms, near) in relation to his creation. But is there a logical priority between the two characteristics? How should we think of these characteristics when it comes to worship?

Danny Simpson has written an excellent post reflecting on these things here.

Jason Stellman: On Church Success and the Ordinary Means of Grace

I'm currently rereading Jason Stellman's 2009 book Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet for a group discussion. If you haven't read it yet, what are you waiting for?! Click on the link above, buy it, and read it.

Stellman writes this about church success and the ordinary means of grace (e.g. preaching the Word and administering the sacraments):

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for American Christianity is the fact that God blesses these simple means of grace to the building up of His church not because of the power of the means (ex opere operato) or because of the winsome or witty pesonality of the man who administers them or the piety of the one who receives them (ex opere operantis), but simply because He has promised to do so. Not even the pastor's own godliness can ensure divine blessing, just as the lack thereof cannot preclude it. In a culture obsessed with "success" (which is usually determined by counting nickels and noses), the ministry of a faithful pastor to his little flock often appears weak and paltry when compared with the glossy professionalism of the megachurch down the street. But when we filter our ideas about success through the lens of the cross, all equating of success with popular acclaim immediately disappears. Jesus' "success" was measured by His faithfulness to His Father's errand, as is that of the church He founded and sent, even as He Himself was sent (John 20:21) (13-14).

byFaith Magazine: On Remembering the Poor

If you subscribe to byFaith magazine, don't miss the excellent article "Christianity and Capitalism" in the latest issue.

On Galatians 2:10 where Paul says, "They asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do" the article reads:

How? What does it mean to remember the poor? And, how exactly, should we open our hearts to them? A short-term solution, of course, is to give. The people of Haiti need money, food, water, medicine--and they need it now. But when the crisis passes, the money will be gone, the food and water will have been consumed, and the people of Haiti will still be poor.

The only lasting solution to poverty is wealth, and only businesses--not government, not non-profits, not even the church--creates wealth. . . .

If the devil himself wanted to keep God's image bearers in the wretched bondage of lifelong poverty . . . he'd persuade them that business is evil, and convince them to oppose it at every turn.

The godly alternative, of course, is for believers to subdue the earth, to use time, talent, and the materials God's given to earn profits, and to use them to produce jobs and to care for real needs (42).

What a wonderful vision of individual believers glorifying God (i.e. loving him) by using the gifts he's given them in their unique vocations to benefit the cities in which they live (i.e. loving their neighbors as themselves).

More on the FV in the PCA

Here

Westminster Confession of Faith 11.1

What a beautiful statement of redemption applied:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Sean Lucas: On Preaching Christ

My friend Matt Bradley is an Assistant Pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville, TN. On a trip back home to Georgia in January, my family and I stopped in Nashville and Matt gave us a tour of the their new sanctuary. Etched into the pulpit for every preacher to see is a message from his hearers: "Sir, we will see Christ." I think that is an apt summary of the preacher's task. Preachers are called to exalt Christ so that his people might feed upon him by faith.

Today Sean Lucas posted an excellent article at Ref21 on this issue. Don't miss the other Ref21 posts these last few days from Carl Trueman and Derek Thomas on this topic.

PCA SJC Rules on the Pacific Northwest Presbytery Complaint

The SJC has ruled in favor of the complaint against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery's initial ruling on the investigation of Peter Leithart. Here's a post from Jason Stellman on it.

Miscellanies 20: On Church Health

If church health is another way of saying godliness, then article 4 of section 2 of the "Preface to the Book of Church Order" (PCA) is instructive:

Godliness is founded upon truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour's rule, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.

Here we see the affirmation that action follows understanding, practice follows faith. In other words, you cannot love what you do not know. This is true for individuals as well as the church.

The basis of church unity is the purity of her confession, and if "church health" is another way of saying "the well-being of church unity," then church health is based on the fullness and precision of her confession.

At the end of the day everyone knows this, but some suppress it. I'm reminded of this quote from David Hall's essay "The History of Westminster Assembly Commemorations" in volume 1 of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. Ligon Duncan (Hall is quoting Edward Roberts):

A very penetrating thinker has observed, "When you hear anyone say, 'Away with creeds,' you know that what he really means is 'take mine.' Everyone has a creed. There is not a single exception. And we live according to what we really believe. How foolish then the prejudice against doctrine. Much of it is based upon ignorance (24).

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. We can unite with other human beings in the cause of social justice regardless of religious affiliation. There is no need to capitulate to ecclesiastical latitudinarianism.

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, including the classic doctrine 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 what God has called her to be, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments, and exercising spiritual discipline for the gathering and perfecting (i.e. increasingly loving God with all of oneself) of the elect. Then Christians will be truly empowered to live as good citizens of the world, engaged in issues related to social justice (i.e. loving their neighbors as themselves) 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 I'm pretty sure 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 stayed in the NICU while his lungs finished developing. I remember watching his little chest rise up and down as he struggled to breathe. 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 soon returned saying "Daddy, preach to me like at church." I began reading from John 6 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 made her way into the living room. Cole cut his eyes at her, pointed in her direction, and said 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, because 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 often brings the Bible to me, opens it up, and says, 'Read God.' Also, when we have family worship she prays and sings praises to God. She even has the first four answers of the catechism memorized." 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. Some have even gone so far as to say that, because of our union with Christ, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is redundant.

Others have reacted to that theory, seeing it as undermining 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 (as is held by Shepherd and the FV) is wholly different from the understanding that love necessarily follows justifying faith (the historic Reformed understanding).

I was thinking about this yesterday and came to a 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 indwelling sin to death 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)
   

• Saving Faith
• Justification
• Adoption
• Sanctification
• 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 mysterious 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.