Evangelical or Reformed?

With the growing popularity of Calvinism (which has been reduced to mean predestination), many Evangelicals are calling themselves Reformed.  Christianity Today did a cover story about this fad entitled “Young, Restless, and Reformed” and there is also a new book with the same title.  But are they truly Reformed or just Evangelicals who believe in predestination?  D.G. Hart provides a contrast:

Reformed – Evangelical 

Inheritance – Individualism

Nurture – Conversion

Mediation – Immediacy/Intimacy

Church – Parachurch

Preaching – Quiet Time

Lord’s Supper – Altar Call

Baptism – WWJD

Doctrine – Experience

Creeds – No Creed But the Bible

Reform – Revival

Forms – Intentions

Procedures – Influence

Pre-Modern – Modern

Delegated Authority – Democracy

 

Here are some of my own:

Machen - Ockenga

Muller – Mohler

Reformed Orthodoxy – Pietism

Historic Christianity – Fundamentalism

William Perkins – Billy Graham

John Owen – Jonathan Edwards

Mortification of Sin – Accountability Partner

Second Service – Small Groups

Old Lights – New Lights

Reformation – Great Awakenings

Historic Confessions – The Fundamentals

Berkhof – Grudem

Reformed Systematic Theology – The 5 Points

Psalms – Praise Band

 

Get Your Weekly Machen Fix: Responsibility of the Church

This is the first installment of what will be a weekly series at Geneva Redux.  The following text is compiled from What is Christianity and Christianity and Liberalism.  Thanks to D.G. Hart for the compilation.

There are certain things which you cannot expect from such a true Christian church.  In the first place, you cannot expect from it any cooperation with non-Christian religion or with a non-Christian program of ethical culture.  There are those who tell us that the Bible ought to be put into the public schools, and that the public schools should seek to build character by showing the children that honesty is the best policy and that good Americans do not lie nor steal.  With such programs a true Christian church will have nothing to do….

In the second place, you cannot expect from a true Christian any official pronouncements upon the political or social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use of force.  Important are the functions of the police, and members of the church, either individually or in such special associations as they may choose to form, should aid the police in every lawful way in the exercise of the those functions.  But the function of the church in its corporate capacity is of an entirely different kind.  Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission….

The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age.  It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life — nay, all the length of human history — is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and offered us communion with Himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whosoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bring it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth — nay, all the wonders of the starry heavens — are as the dust of the street. (1933)

Religion is thought to be necessary for a healthy community; and therefore for the sake of the community [people] are willing to have a church.  Whatever may be thought of this attitude toward religion, it is perfectly plain that the Christian religion cannot be treated in any such way.  The moment it is so treated it ceases to be Christian.  For if one thing is plain it is that Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end.  Our Lord made that perfectly clear when He said: ”If any man comes to me, and hates not his father and mother… he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).  Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certainly meant that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those that exist between husband and wife and parent and child.  Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them.  Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. (1923)

Rick Warren and the Spirituality of the Church

The doctrine of the spirituality of the church was ignored again on Saturday, August 16, 2008 at the Saddleback Civil Forum where Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church interviewed presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.  Rick Warren, an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, posed questions to these politicians in the context of a forum sponsored by a church that took place in a church.  Warren inquired about the personal faith of the candidates as well as their political and social views.  

I am sure that Rick Warren is a nice guy who genuinely cares about the state of the union.  That’s great; so do I.  The problem is not that he cares about his country, but that he uses his office of minister and his church to address these issues.  The spirituality of the church has always stated that the church as the church is to concern herself with spiritual matters, namely the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and spiritual discipline.  That is all.  D. G. Hart in his book, Seeking a Better County, described the doctrine as practiced by 19th century Southern Presbyterians, “Southern Presbyterians saw the church’s task as preaching the gospel, trusting that the Holy Spirit would regenerate sinners by His Word and build them up in Christ. The church was not commissioned to make the world a better place in which to live. It had no business telling the government how to rule the body politic. It was not to feed the hungry, or provide houses for the homeless, or protest social injustice. These political and social temptations only distracted the church from its spiritual calling.” 

When the church abandons her spiritual calling, not only does she fail to accomplish her God-given responsibilities, she also fails to accomplish her newfound political and social endeavors.  The church is made worse and the society is made worse.  The fusion and confusion of religion and politics is never a good thing.   

This is not to say that Christians cannot take part in civil matters; they can and should as good citizens.  It is to say that an ordained minister should not place himself and his church into the political arena.  Christians should vote, run for public office, serve in their communities, and do all the other things that productive citizens do.  They should do these things however, as private citizens not as the corporate church.  The church should not be a forum for political debate, promotion of candidates, or voter registration.  I am sad to say that I have witnessed all of these things personally.  

J. Gresham Machen took part in many local and national civic issues including testifying before Congress concerning the formation of a federal department of education.  He did these things as a private citizen, not as an ordained minister.  In his book, What is Christianity, he offered sober words:

“You cannot expect from a true Christian church any official pronouncements upon the political and social questions of the day… But the function of church in its corporate capacity is of an entirely different kind.  Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission, which is to bring to bear upon human hearts the solemn and imperious, yet also sweet and gracious, appeal of the gospel of Christ.”

So I ask, what hath Jerusalem to do with Washington?

Goodbye to Boston

 

On top of the Green Monstah

Tuesday, August 19th is our final day in Beantown.  Marcy and I have had a fantastic summer, spending eight weeks in the Bay State.  I completed eight credit hours of German for Reading in Theological and Religious Studies at Harvard Divinity School.  I came in not being able to read the alphabet and can now read Kant and Tillich in their mother tongue.  It is amazing what a Bavarian professor can accomplish with a mediocre student when applying the famous German discipline.  Our group far surpassed the much more laid-back French class with their berets and cigarette smoking.  

 

My two loves

I will miss many things about Boston, most of all the food.  Mike’s Pastry is the finest bakery in America with the best cannoli.  Hot Tomatoes has outstanding Italian food for cheap.  Giacomo’s is the best Italian restaurant I have ever been to; plus, two people can easily eat for $40.  I will miss walking along the Charles River, playing frisbee in Boston Common, and riding the T.  

 

Boston is the city where Marcy and I were married.  Spending eight weeks here was almost like a second honeymoon.  We’ll be back soon.

Who is that Reformed guy?

 

Good Will Hunting bench

Elvis and the Importance of the Local Church

 

Or is he?

August 16 is the 31st anniversary of the death (fake death?) of Elvis Presley.  Elvis was raised in a pentecostal church and recorded multiple gospel albums, for which he received his only Grammies.  As I pondered his lonely life and unfortunate death, my thoughts turned to the importance of the local church and the means of grace.  If Elvis was a true believer, he certainly made a huge mistake by not availing himself of the benefits of the gathering of believers.  Being on the road for many years and making movies nonstop prevented him, if he so desired, from being part of the institution founded by Christ Himself.  

The same is true for contemporary Christian singers today.  While they may not reach the same tragic end as Elvis, they are greatly hindered by not regularly attending divine services and receiving the means of grace.  Unfortunately, this is a reality for average Christians as well, even those who are not traveling constantly.  Many Christians fail to attend services regularly, especially the second service.  Probably all of us are guilty of this to one degree or another, so why do we do it at all?  Do we really have better things to do than hear a Word from God and receive His body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?  Surely not.   

Many Christians struggle with assurance; but how many of those are regular attenders of the means of grace by which faith is created and confirmed?  We cannot possibly expect to have assurance if we refuse the means by which assurance comes.  This is not to say that regular church attendance guarantees no struggles in the faith, but it does mean that the bumps in the road will be less significant when firmly planted in the church, hearing the gospel preached and receiving the sacraments.  

 

Paul preaching in Athens

Regular church attendance is also important because it is there that we receive strength and encouragement from fellow Christians.  God has given pastors and elders care over our souls.  He has given deacons the responsibility to meet the physical needs of the congregation.  He brings together brothers and sisters united in Christ to form a body that is incomplete without every part.  

 

Heb. 10:24 ”And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,  25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Are Anabaptists Protestant?

Portions of this post come from an essay entitled “A Baptism of Suffering:  Hans Hut’s Doctrine of Justification.”  The complete essay is found under PAGES to the right.

In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in the theology and practice of the Anabaptists of the 16th Century, with many current baptists claiming the Anabaptists as their spiritual forerunners.  A closer examination of Anabaptist theology needs to take place, however, before viewing them as heroes of the faith.  Some may find it hard to believe that there were more important aspects of their theology than baptism, namely soteriology (doctrine of salvation).  

One of the leading Anabaptists of the 1620’s was a bookseller from southern Germany named Hans (John) Hut.  Hut’s doctrine of justification (how we are righteous before God), was typical of Anabaptists, then and now.  The doctrine of justification was the centerpiece of the Protestant Reformation and the main line of demarcation between Protestants and Roman Catholics.  Hut’s doctrine places him in neither camp, but certainly closer to the Roman position.

Hans Hut claimed that the initial faith received from hearing the gospel was temporarily imputed for righteousness.  He compared this faith to silver that is still in the ore, full of dross and unproven.  This silver must be tested and separated from impurities before it can be true silver.  This is why the apostles say, “We believe. Help our unbelief.”  Hut commented, “Oh, how well may our initial faith be compared to unbelief! – as a person then discovers in the testing of justification, since too often he finds in himself neither faith nor trust (Romans 11).”  This testing phase may be described as the abyss of hell.  Nothing can bring joy until the individual is purified by God. 

Only after the faith of a man has been tested is he truly justified.  Hut saw this period of faith testing as contrary to Luther’s doctrine of sola fide.  As a medieval realist, he considered Luther’s doctrine mere words representing a fictitious standing before God.  Hut explained his position, “This justification is valid before God, and it does not come from an untested faith.  For an untested faith reaches only to where righteousness begins, and there it must be prepared and justified.”

This baptism of suffering which tested faith was necessary because in order for God to declare someone righteous, that individual had to be righteous.  Justification for Hut was not a legal declaration; it was an elimination of sin.  He wrote, “If God wants to use or take pleasure in us, first we have to be justified by him and made clean, inside and out (2 Timothy 2).  Inwardly, from desires and lusts, outwardly, from all unjust conduct and misuse of creatures.”  So justification came as a result of the process of sanctification, not the other way around.               

Hut was not completely clear in his writing as to how long this baptism of suffering would last in a person.  At one point he declared, “Therefore baptism is a struggle to kill sin throughout one’s whole life.”  This sounds similar to the Protestant doctrine of sanctification.  However, later in the same tract he wrote, “If lusts are few, then one does not remain long in the water of grief.”  This seems to be closer to the medieval doctrine of penance, or even purgatory.

The end result of this baptism of suffering is complete union with God.  Hut explained, “Then the person becomes conformed to Christ, the crucified son [sic] of God – united with him who is totally and completely locked in us in one body.  Then the person lives no longer, but Christ.”  This language is reminiscent of the medieval doctrine of deification, whereby man is increasingly transformed by grace until he is able to participate in divine being. 

It is clear from his writing that Hans Hut’s doctrine of justification was closer to Rome than to Luther and the Protestants.  He agreed with Rome that justification comes only after and to the degree in which one is sanctified.  Basically, God cannot declare anyone righteous until that person is inherently righteous.

This doctrine is contrary to the Protestant doctrine of justification which believes that God declares someone righteous based upon the person and work of Christ, not the inherent righteousness of the individual.  The person is still a sinner and will remain so until he is glorified.  Justification is a legal declaration by God, not an infusion of grace with which a sinner must cooperate in order to make himself righteous.  Paul made it clear in Romans 5.

Rom. 5:6   For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—  8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.  10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.  11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 

Hut’s doctrine of justification was not unique among Anabaptists.  There was not a single Anabaptist who believed in justification by grace through faith alone.  So before claiming the Anabaptists as spiritual forefathers, baptists today must consider the Anabaptist doctrine of justification.  Their doctrine is certainly not Protestant, falling very close to the Roman position.

---

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 159.

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 168. 

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 170.

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 169.

  This medieval doctrine is perhaps best articulated by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. Thomas Gilby, 61 vols. (London and New York: Blackfriars and McGraw-Hill, 1964-1980), 1a2ae 112.1 

---

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 164.

  Baylor, Radical Reformation, 165-66.

Spectator Worship

Good Grief

While away from my home-church (Oceanside United Reformed Church) this summer, I have had the opportunity to visit a variety of churches here in Boston.  I have been disturbed to witness the spectator element in many worship services.  By this I mean portions of the service where the congregation is entirely passive.  This most often takes place during special music (soloists and choirs), but some churches include drama, interpretive dance, handbells, finger painting, puppet shows, hop-scotch, etc.  

While surrounded by an entertainment-driven culture, why would we want to introduce entertainment into the corporate worship of God?  If you do not think that spectator portions of the service are entertainment, what do you call it?  The congregation has no role except to admire the talent of the performer.  You may reply that the spectator is encouraged to worship God through the activity of the performer.  The problem is, the only individuals in Scripture through whom worship of God is directed are the priests as they offer sacrifices.  The priests, of course have been replaced by the Great High Priest Jesus Christ.  So basically, if I am told to worship through the activity of another, that person becomes my mediator.  This is a problem.  I would rather have Jesus as a Mediator than any church performer.

 

This is Worship

 If these performances are not entertainment, then why does the congregation often applaud?  We are not applauding the performer, we are applauding God, some may say.  Does God need your applause?  If they are applauding God, why does applause only take place after special music and not the sermon, offering, or benediction.  The reality is God does not need your applause and the performer does not need to become an object of idolatry, which is exactly what he or she is when applauded in a worship service.  The attention is taken away from the Triune God and given to a mere human.  

Some may say that the preaching of the gospel is just as passive as spectator elements.  I strongly disagree.  The preaching of the gospel is not something to passively observe; rather, it is a means of grace given by God and received by us.  The preaching of the gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to generate faith in the individual.  Romans 10:14ff, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching?…  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”  The preaching of the gospel is certainly not passive; it is a divinely appointed means of grace.

The second commandment makes it clear that God desires to be worshipped in a specific manner.  The standard of what is acceptable in worship is not what makes us feel good or gives us that tingly sensation.  The deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10) make it clear that God takes worship very seriously.  The Reformed tradition has always understood that in worship we must only do what Scriptures commands, the Regulative Principle of Worship.  This is contrary to Lutheran and Anglican traditions which worship in any way that is not forbidden in Scripture.  So theoretically, Lutherans and Anglicans can worship with drama or interpretive dance because they are not expressly forbidden in the Bible.  

So I pose the question, are we commanded by God in His Word to include spectator elements in corporate worship?  I think that the answer is clear.  Remember this next time you are called upon to be a spectator in worship.  

Hell's Bells

John F. Kennedy Library

I recently toured the John F. Kennedy Library here in Boston.  It sits right on the Boston Harbor overlooking the sea which Kennedy loved.  The library is very impressive with rooms dedicated to the debate with Nixon, the president’s love of sports, Jacqueline Kennedy’s glamorization of the White House, civil rights, and many others.  There is even the notecard from the famous Berlin speech, where Kennedy phonetically spelled out Ich bin ein Berliner in order to pronounce it correctly.  The room covering the events of November 22, 1963 is absolutely chilling.

As I toured the library, I could not help but think of JFK’s spiritual condition.  Everyone knows that he was Roman Catholic, but by most accounts he was really more of a modern humanist.  Kennedy’s main concern was not some far off God or what he saw as escapism from a world of problems.  He was a man of action; a man who wanted to make a difference in this world.  He certainly did make a difference and the world is left wondering what more could he have accomplished had he lived.

But what did Kennedy’s focus on the present world profit him after he was removed from it?  He can no longer go back and prepare himself for the world to come.  Whatever his decisions were, one thing is certain, the results are final.    

Did you know who else died on November 22, 1963?  The famous authors C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both entered eternity within hours of JFK.  Peter Kreeft, a Roman Catholic apologist and philosopher, has written a captivating fictitious account of a meeting that takes place with these three giants entitled, Between Heaven and Hell.  Lewis presents the case for Christianity, while JFK argues for modern humanism, with Huxley promoting Eastern pantheism.  Lewis’ case is compelling and the reader is left hoping that somehow Kennedy and Huxley did believe in Christ before they died.

Ich bin ein Glaübige!  I am a believer!

Sam Adams, Beer, and the Reformers

This weekend, I toured the Boston Beer Company, home of Sam Adams.  The brewery has been in operation since 1985 and has won countless awards.  The building that houses the brewery is well over 100 years old and looks every bit of it.  I was a little disheartened to hear that the majority of the brewing of Sam Adams, now the second-largest American-owned brewery, is sub-contracted to other breweries across the country.  Very little is actually brewed in their Boston headquarters.

The tour was fairly informative about the process of brewing beer.  Did you know that the German beer purity law or Reinheitsgebot, was enacted in 1516 and permitted only four ingredients in the beverage:  water, hops, barley, and yeast?  While the law is no longer on the books, the tradition still remains and is kept by many American brewers, including Sam Adams.  

Since this blog is dedicated to reformation theology, I thought that I would include some information about the imbibing of our 16th century brethren.  A great book by Jim West, Drinking with Luther and Calvin, provides all the details.  He also has an article in Modern Reformation on the same subject, the source of the following information.  

Martin Luther was especially fond of beer; he even had a mug encircled by three rings.  The first ring represented the Lord’s prayer, the second the Ten Commandments, and the third the Apostle’s Creed.  Luther thought it humorous that on one occasion, his good friend Agricola could not get beyond the Ten Commandments.

Luther once wrote a love letter to his wife when he was away complaining that “there is nothing fit to drink here.”  He pleaded with his wife Catherine, herself a trained brewer, to accomplish an impossible feat:

“It would be a good thing for you to send me the whole wine cellar and a bottle of your own beer as often as you can. If you don’t I shall not come back for the new beer. Amen. Your lover, Martin Luther.”

John Calvin joined Luther in his love for reformed beverages, but being a Frenchman, preferred wine over beer.  Part of his annual salary included about 250 gallons of wine.  He even foresaw the dangers of the 19th and 20th centuries in America where abstinence became a sign of Christian maturity.  Calvin wrote in his commentary on Psalm 104:15 that God has given “wine to make the heart of man glad,” and also cautioned against making the danger of drunkenness, “a pretext for a new cult based upon abstinence.” 

Luther’s responded to the iconoclasts of his day, who destroyed objects abused in worship, with reasoning that is fitting for the subject of Christian liberty and alcohol:

“Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky? … See how much He has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all. Had I wished I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.”

West’s closing reminders in his article are appropriate:

“Deuteronomy 14:26 teaches that God’s people are to drink “wine” and “strong drink” in God’s presence. The New Testament corollary is 1 Corinthians 10, which teaches all drinking for Christians is religious. “Therefore whatsoever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).”

 

 

Unitarians Hit the Blue Note

This past Lord’s Day I attended services at a Unitarian-Universalist church here in Boston.  Don’t worry, I also attended a confessionally reformed church.  I thought that I would investigate the spiritual tradition that makes up the majority of Harvard Divinity School.  It was basically what I had anticipated, lots of talk about love and inclusiveness without any creeds or doctrine.  There was an interesting aspect though, that I thought I would share.

During the service, there was a time for individuals to share their joys and sorrows by filling out a card that is read to the congregation.  A candle is lit for each joy and sorrow.  There were a few joys shared, but I was more struck by the sorrow expressed.  One person mourned the loss of his friend who had recently died.  Another shared his grief for a friend dying of cancer.  The entire congregation was called to mourn the tragic church shooting that occurred in Tennessee last week.

While all this took place, I was thinking how foreign this would be in an Evangelical church.  (Side note:  When I use the term Evangelical (capital E), I am referring to the religious/social movement of the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.  This movement is more characterized by politics and social activism than by the gospel.  I am not referring to evangelical (small e), which comes from the Greek word for gospel and characterizes those who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ at all times and in all places.  There are some Evangelicals who are also evangelical.)

This time of sorrow and mourning would never occur in most Evangelical churches because that would not fit in with happy-clappy vibe they are trying to perpetuate.  Most people walk around with plastic smiles and cheerful demeanors, no matter what the occasion.  Even at funerals, many Evangelicals “celebrate a life” rather than mourn a death.

This idea of constant glee is very foreign to Scripture.  There is a time to laugh; but there is also a time to weep.  There is a time to dance; but there is also a time to mourn (Ecclesiastes 3:4).  It is appropriate and fitting to mourn death and to be sorrowful over the tragedies of life.  We should not paint on a happy face when our lives are filled with pain.  These times of suffering should remind us of the awfulness of sin and how foreign it is in the world that God created.  Death is not a part of life.

 

Mourning Angel

As we mourned these expressed sorrows together in the Unitarian-Universalist congregation, I also mourned for the souls of those in the congregation.  You see, they mourn as those who have no hope.  They do not have the hope wrought by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Paul instructed believers in 1 Thess 4:13-14 to “not grieve as others who have no hope.  For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”

 

There is a time to experience sorrow and pain; but there is also a time to rejoice.  We must weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice.  Life does come with blue notes.  Both times of rejoicing and times of sorrow should drive us to Christ.