True and Eternal
“Yahweh is the true God; he is the God of the living and the eternal King. The earth shakes from his wrath and the nations cannot bear his curse.”
(Jeremiah 10:10)
There are many adjectives that are applied to God: mighty, glorious, faithful, etc… but perhaps two of the most common and most important are that of true and eternal. Essentially, what these adjectives communicate is that God is the one true God — there is no other and all others who seek to present themselves as God are false and only lead mankind astray and into eternal condemnation. In addition, this is the way it has always been and will always be, for not only is God true, but he is eternal and not bound by the constraints of time as are we. To God there is no before and no after; he never changes, learns new information, or weakens. He simply is. And thus, if we are going to stand in this life and in the next, we must stand upon the foundation He has laid.
And thus, as Question 25 of Heidelberg comes to a close, it affirms both of these adjectives in the context of who our Triune God is…and who he will always be. So note, not only is this statement being made in the broad sense of God, but in the catechism, it is being made of the Triune God. Numerous heresies have arisen around the nature of the Trinity (some say that God did not become Triune until the birth of Jesus, others say that he is divisible, others say that God was just taking different forms), yet the catechism affirms that God is Triune, he has always been Triune, will always be Triune, and that this is the only true way to understand who God is.
Why is this important for the individual Christian in his day to day life? First, because the things that he has been taught (assuming they were taught correctly) are not going to change. God is the same yesterday, today, and eternally. This, my friends, is the true faith in service of the true God. If one would be saved, let him believe on these things.
God Said It and Yes, That Settles It
God Said it and Yes, that Settles It: An open letter in response to Adam Hamilton, on the United Methodist decision on the question of homosexuality in the church.
(Dr. Hamilton’s Original Post can be found here)
One of the benefits of the internet age is that it has allowed communication and ideas to be shared in a way that is unprecedented in human history. My old college professors used to lament this because it meant that anyone with a computer could post their thoughts for all to see, no matter how accurate their information may actually be. While I respect the positions of my former professors and take their words as a caution to read what others says with a grain (or lots of grains) of salt, I celebrate the change that has taken place. Think about it this way, there is a time not so long ago when the corporate publishing houses largely controlled the dissemination of ideas. That meant (typically) that the process of writing articles and books “belonged” to the professionals in their field. In turn, the average person in the west kept their ideas to themselves or to a small group of friends. Now, ideas can be freely shared broadly and people from every walk of life are encouraged to enter into the conversation. And Dr. Hamilton, given that you are a blogger as I am, I expect that you and I agree on this principle.
One of the interesting aspects of this larger conversation is that people are drawn in from broader perspectives than those having the actual conversation itself. While sometimes this is helpful, if it is not being actively sought, it can often be harmful — particularly in the context of debates that affect the lives of numerous people. That is why, when my wife forwarded this article (sent to her from a cousin), my initial reaction was, “I don’t have a dog in this fight — I left the United Methodist church almost 20 years ago — I’m staying out of it.”
Then I got to thinking and realized that I do have a dog in this fight. Not only was I born and raised in the United Methodist Church and have both a mother and a grandfather who were ordained in the United Methodist Church, but I also began preaching in the United Methodist Church. It was during the five years of preaching as a Licensed Lay Speaker (typically in the pulpit more than I was out of it) that my theology changed and I shifted from being a Wesleyan to a Calvinist (hence my departure). And so, I have roots in the United Methodist Church and am grateful to that church for giving me the opportunity to preach. There are also people for whom I care deeply that are invested in the denomination. Any denominational decision that grieves their spiritual wellbeing, then, grieves my heart as well. And, to borrow the words of Jesus, “whoever causes one of these little ones to stray, it would be better for a millstone to be hung around his neck and drowned in the sea.” Hard words, but words to which we must take heed.
And so, Dr Hamilton, be aware that others are listening. And while I am a Calvinist, I am a Calvinist who owes a debt of gratitude to you who are in the Wesleyan tradition — when I initially left the UMC to join the PCA, I used to tell people that I was a “Welsh Calvinist-Methodist in the spirit of Whitefield and Lloyd-Jones.” I trust, Dr. Hamilton, that you can appreciate that sentiment.
There is a stream of logic, though, within your blog that I think is worth addressing. You closed your article with the words: “The Bible says it, but I don’t believe that settles it.” Your position was supported by a number of Old and New Testament rules and guidelines that nearly every Biblical scholar considers to be matters of contextual application and not meant to be permanent and ongoing for the church. For example, you mention that we no longer advocate stoning for Sabbath-breaking (though boy, that would help church attendance, wouldn’t it?). We also no longer stone the incorrigible child or adulterers. We also do not anticipate being commanded to commit genocide and would prosecute those who would seek to attempt genocide. We also take out loans for automobiles and homes…and worse yet, we use our credit cards for most every purchase we make. Women aren’t required to wear hats (though many do on Easter Sunday) and men don’t shave their heads — frankly, I would grow my hair out again if I thought my Elders would condone it (lol!). So, I do understand the point you are making: we need to take the commands of scripture in the context of the passage in which they are found.
And so, as many of these commands are in the context of the civil law of ancient Israel, and we are no longer living under a theocratic form of government, many of these laws do not have a direct bearing on the way we live. But, from this point forward, we will differ. Because these laws are given by God, they teach us principles about his character — what God permits and what God finds to be sin when practiced in the lives of his people. Further, we also recognize that these Old Testament laws flow out of the Ten Commandments (which Jesus states will not pass away until the heavens and the earth pass away). And thus, we do not completely throw those laws out the window. In fact, in many western cultures, principles found in Biblical laws were applied to new contexts to create God-honoring laws in a new day and age.
An example of the aforementioned point is that of placing fences around flat roofs to prevent people from rolling off. This is a practical application of a principle found in God’s character — all humans are made in God’s image and thus their lives should be protected where possible. This, is also an application of the 6th commandment. Now, we may not have flat roofs, but we have many areas like swimming pools or construction sites where there are typically ordinances that are built upon the principle taught in Deuteronomy 22:8.
You may ask, what about the command to stone adulterers? The same principle applies. We learn about God’s attitude toward adultery and divorce by the strictness of this command…something that Jesus echoes again in Matthew 19:3-12. And, though the rules regarding divorce in America have gotten more and more permissive, that wasn’t always the case. And, as a fellow pastor, I expect that you probably share my view that divorce is too accessible in the United States and that they do tremendous damage to the life of the family.
How about not storing up treasure on earth? You and I once again, probably share a lot in common in this area, too. Too often, the wealth that people store up for retirement becomes an idol in their lives and stops them from doing ministry like they should. Amen? Sure, we should save money for such a time as when we are no longer able to be gainfully employed — counting the cost of building that tower that Jesus mentions — but there is a difference between enough and a super-abundance. And how much better can that wealth be used in building Christ’s kingdom? I am reminded of one of my favorite sayings from John Wesley: “Money and I are but passing acquaintances…” This, of course, sets the stage for his philosophy of earning all you can so you can give all you can.
And thus, when we get to the laws regarding the stoning of those practicing homosexual behavior, no, we do not actually carry this out. Yet, the principle that the law is built upon shows us God’s character. Furthermore, the language about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 is language that is found not in the context of a law, but of a principle of keeping oneself sexually pure. In context, God is writing that this is the way Egyptians lived and I wiped them out; this is the way the Canaanites live and I am about to wipe them out. Do not live like your neighbors do or I will throw you out of the land as well. And so here is not just a passage from which we can infer a principle based on God’s laws for national Israel, here is a direct moral application of the seventh commandment.
Let me approach this from a different angle. When approaching a question in Scripture that was debated, Wesley offered a 4-fold approach to interpretation that we know as “Wesley’s Quadrilateral.” I know that you, Dr. Hamilton, are likely far more acquainted with this principle than I, but for the benefit of our readers following along with the conversation, let me offer up briefly what was ingrained upon me in my earlier days as a Methodist.
Essentially, Wesley argued that when there was a passage of Scripture that is unclear, one uses four tools to unpack what is being said: Scripture itself, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. What then, shall we say about the question of homosexual relationships when the Quadrilateral is used to explore the idea?
To begin with, what does Scripture teach? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that homosexuals (along with those who commit to a number of other sinful practices) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is true that there is forgiveness in Christ whereby we are made a part of the Kingdom, but forgiveness requires repentance (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 8:22). As you well know, Dr. Hamilton, repentance means that you have changed your mind toward something you have been doing and have turned away from it. If a person is continuing to practice their sin (inside or outside of the context of the church), then they are clearly not repentant (see 1 John 3:4).
What else does Scripture teach? Paul instructs Timothy (1 Timothy 1:10) that those who practice homosexual behavior are doing what is contrary to “sound doctrine.” And, like the passage in 1 Corinthians 6, homosexual behavior is listed alongside of other sinful actions. Furthermore, Paul writes in Romans 1:26-27 that the homosexual actions of the people (both gay and lesbian in this instance) were a sign that God had withdrawn his restraining grace due to the idolatry of the people. John, in his Apocalypse, records that those who are sexually immoral (remember the list from Leviticus 18) will have their eternal portion in the lake of fire.
Typically, people look to Leviticus 20:13, which commands the death penalty for homosexual practice, but as we have mentioned already, Leviticus 18:22 is the definitive passage in the Old Testament that defines what is a pagan and immoral sexual act. But what of Genesis 13:13 which speaks of the men of Sodom? This action takes place again in Judges 19:22. We can also infer from 1 Kings 14:24 that the male prostitutes of the land were doing according to the “abominations of the nations the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” What were those abominations? Leviticus 18.
My point is that I am not aware of a single passage of Scripture that speaks positively of the practice of homosexuality. No, not one. That is the testimony of Scripture alone. Where I stand now, in the Reformed tradition, this is largely where we stop — something we refer to as the “Reformed Hermeneutic,” but we are exploring this in the Wesleyan tradition, so what do tradition, reason, and experience have to say on the matter?
I think that you would be hard pressed to discover a theologian prior to liberalism in the mid-nineteenth century that would affirm homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. In Wesley’s own notes on the New Testament, he has some strong language when it comes to speaking of those practicing homosexuality, calling them Sodomites.
What of reason, then? Homosexuality, one could argue, is simply a natural inclination of certain people and thus should be tolerated at the very least in a culture that permits free expression. Yet, if that is the case, why do we not also tolerate polyamorous relationships? Should not group marriage also be allowed? Mormons advocated this to no avail for many years and Muslims are advocating this today. Why not other sexual practices that are ordinarily considered immoral? What defines the limits of morality? Does culture define this or does God? If you advocate for the culture, you are separating yourself from hundreds of years of Christian thought and philosophy.
What of experience? Certainly there are cultures which have tolerated degrees of homosexual behavior and sometimes even celebrated it, though the latter is very rare. There are also those who would argue that the homosexual relationships of which the Bible speaks are different from a loving and committed relationship advocated by those in the movement seeking to legitimate homosexual marriages today. Yet, experience is subjective by nature and is the weakest of Wesley’s four approaches. Statistics would also suggest that homosexual relationships, more often than not, do not have the longevity of heterosexual relationships. We could explore this at length, but even using Wesley’s own approach, advocating approval for a homosexual marriage or relationship in the context of the church, is really difficult to affirm.
From a Reformed perspective, the move of more mainstream denominations like the UMC toward a view that accepts homosexual practice as accepted seems more to be the church’s accommodation of a shift in the cultural attitude toward homosexuals. Yet, I am reminded of G. Campbell Morgan’s great quote that the church is called to lead the culture, not to follow it. Or, perhaps Jesus’ own words that the world does not accept us because Christ has called us out of the world (John 15:18-21).
In the end, Dr. Hamilton, the decision that the UMC makes will not directly affect me, my denomination, or the church I serve. Yet, it will do so indirectly due to friendships, family, and other acquaintances that fall within your denomination. I have appreciated the irenic approach to disagreement that is so often a part of your writings and I hope that you receive this open letter in the kind of irenic spirit with which it is meant.
You expressed your ideas in a public way and thus I offer a public response, though I do not suppose that a conservative and Reformed position on Scripture is really being sought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that a plea to reconsider your position is not being offered up.
In the end, let me ask you the question, if you hold to the statement, “The Bible says it, but I don’t believe that settles it,” then what settles the matter? Church tradition and reason also do not help your cause if you are advocating for gay marriage in the church. Are you willing to stand on experience alone? That seems to be shaky footing. I prefer to stand on God’s word (which challenges me and the culture for sure) because if God said it, that must settle it for Christ’s Church. I encourage you to reconsider your position.
The Art of Dissection and High School Biology
If I ever had any aspirations of going into the field of medicine, High School Biology class dashed them to the wind. Now, mind you, I attended a little Public High School in rural Harford County, Maryland and so “state-of-the-art” was little more than a series of spelling words for us. Nevertheless, we had biology class and in biology class, we dissected dead animals.
Mind you, we didn’t get to dissect anything exotic. Our teacher was a fisherman by avocation and so most of what we dissected related to that hobby: worms, crawfish, small fish, etc… Needless to say, for a teenage boy having grown up in the Boy Scouts, dissecting critters like this was not a huge draw.
What made things worse was the fact that those were the days when pretty much every boy carried some sort of knife in his pocket to school, but the School Board did not trust us with scalpels to do the dissections. Instead, we were assigned this little, rounded scissors — kind of like what we had used for crafts back in Kindergarten — to dissect these animals.
I don’t know what the School Board members were thinking (probably about liability), but if you are unsure as to the results we got, Kindergarten shears do not serve the budding biologist well in this task. I remember looking at all of the diagrams in our biology book, depicting what we were supposed to be seeing and all I remember ever seeing was mush. There is a rule of thumb principle in this — imprecise tools in the hands of a novice does not yield precision in any meaningful sense of the word.
So, why the recollection about High School Biology? In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul gives us one of the great analogies of the church — that of the body of Christ. Not all are eyes or hands but both eyes and hands are needed. You know the language. Yet, often, when pastors and theologians handle this idea and apply it to the church, I think that they handle it much like we handled dissection with Kindergarten shears. They make a mess and the body of Christ ends up looking like all the same stuff: mush.
Let me offer an example. In many denominations, if someone is identified as having a call to serve on the missions field or perhaps to go and plant a new church for the denomination, they are sent out to start raising money. True, the benefit to that model is that by the time the man is in the field, he has developed a large network of churches and Christians to help pray for and support his work — though most often, those churches and Christians are not anywhere near the field in which the man is working. Furthermore, it makes the assumption that the calling to be an evangelist brings with it the gift of being a fund-raiser. And the two do not necessarily go hand in glove.
A better model would be to say that if the church identifies a man as having the calling to serve as an evangelist, the church should send him and let him commit fully to said work while assigning the task to others in the body (who have a gift for and love of fund-raising) the task of making sure the evangelist’s financial needs are met. Different parts of the body have different roles, tasks, and giftings so that the whole body can function effectively.
It is true that we are fed by one Spirit and that we have one head in Christ Jesus. And so, there are some things that the whole body shares in common — a circulatory system and a nervous system, for example. Thus, there are things that the whole body does together. We gather for public worship, we commit time to prayer, and we study our Bibles. But, when it comes to the good works that we are called to do, we are most effective doing those works for which God has designed us. Not everyone is called to teach, but we need teachers. Not everyone is called to labor in mercy ministry, but we need those who do. Not everyone is called to organize events, but if we are going to put on an event of sorts, we need people to organize them. Not everyone is called to raise funds for projects, but we need people who raise funds. Not everyone is called to be at every mid-week prayer meeting, but they are good and healthy for the body (think of them like a vitamin tablet!). And, when you assume that every believer should be involved in every area of the work of the church (as many do), then you are making mush of the body with those kindergarten shears once again — rather than seeing the beauty of God’s design in the elegant complexity of the body.
Here’s the trick though. Each part of the body needs to be committed to a common end and each part of the body needs to trust the other parts of the body to act and work in the way in which they were designed. Just as in the human body, parts do not act autonomously, so too, all is meant to work under the headship of Christ that is expressed through the teaching of the Word of God and is moderated by the oversight of the Elders. Yet, the hand can do best what the hand was made to do and the other parts likewise.
And so, leadership in the body is not simply a matter of maintaining systems (your body can be physically healthy but your person can still remain utterly unproductive). Leadership is about equipping hands to be hands and eyes to be eyes and knees to be knees — and then letting those parts function at their full capacity (getting out of their way) so that the body as a whole can achieve its God-given mission of making disciples of the nations and being a buttress and pillar of the truth.
Now, part of Paul’s analogy is the principle that when one part of the body is hurting or in need, then other parts compensate. I stand amazed, for example, at people who have learned to do with their feet what most of us commonly do with our hands, and vice versa. Having had a stroke several years back where my left hand no longer wanted to work right, I had to learn to compensate and then to retrain my brain to make my hand work like it was supposed to do. And thus, in the church, sometimes we step out of our normal areas to assist the whole body in its time of need, but that too, only happens when the body is committed to a common end.
And so, we have a choice, as we look at the church, the body of Christ, we can lump all of the gifts together, dissecting the body with kindergarten shears (and ending up with a gooey mess) or you can expose the elegant diversity of God’s design for the church, celebrating the diverse gifts while knowing that all of those gifts came from one Spirit who calls us to serve to one end — the building of Christ’s kingdom.
God Revealed
You will notice that in question 25 of the Catechism, when asked about the Trinity, the answer begins with the language of “because God revealed…” At first, that might seem like a simple enough phrase and one that is not that important, yet, from the perspective of the Christian faith, it is of significant value. While indeed, the creation testifies to its creator (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20), such knowledge is not sufficient to save or to produce saving faith for faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ, not by works or by innate knowledge (Romans 10:17; Galatians 3:2). Further, that Word cannot be found in nature…no matter how hard you may look or how far you may search. That word must be revealed to us by God himself.
With this in mind, we Christians have a faith that is a “revealed faith.” Apart from the revelation from God, we are lost forever. Left to our own devices, we will seek to earn a salvation that we can never earn and thus be lost in despair. Left to our own devices, our imaginations will create gods after our own image which would be molded by our own hands — little gods that cannot save us from our sins. Left to our own devices, we will create philosophies that will justify our own preferences, thus leaving us in utter moral relativism where each man essentially becomes his own god.
And so, God reveals himself to us and while he did so in many ways (think Hebrews 1:1 — dreams, prophesies, history, poetry, wisdom sayings, etc…), the culmination and compilation of the entirety of God’s revelation is found in His Word. Nothing outside of the Bible (66 books, Genesis-Revelation) is the Revelation of God and thus even the most noble and wisest observations of men must be scrutinized by the light of God’s revelation (not the other way around as is done in many liberal circles).
The sad thing is that many people today would prefer subjective experience to the objectively revealed Word of God. Many prefer their own pragmatic insights to the revealed wisdom of God on high. And many more would prefer a god of their own making to the God of Heaven. Many prefer a god they can control rather than a God who can make demands of them. Such is the nature of fallen man and such is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion — for Christianity is a revealed religion, not one constructed by men.
A Personal God
Our God is a “Personal God.” You know, I never really grasped what that statement meant until I was in seminary. Really, but that goes to show how the phrases we commonly use or hear affect our theology. Think about it this way. I grew up in a Methodist church out in the country and especially as I started coming into my late teen years and early twenties, the church took on a more evangelical and pietistic tone. As a result, what I heard people saying is, “Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” That is the kind of thing that Billy Graham always said, wasn’t it?
In the years following my conversion (I was born again in my early twenties), I became more and more involved in the evangelical and renewal movements that were connected with my denomination — Walk to Emmaus and the Confessing movement amongst other things. And again, that is what we talked about… “a personal relationship” with God.
Now, to me, what I understood by that was that my relationship with God was personal, deep, intimate, and in many ways, unique to my personality — much like I might have a personal relationship with a close friend of mine. Thus, my relationship with God would look different than yours might not because one was better or worse, but because it was unique to my personality. Surely, my relationship with Jason looked different from my relationship with Heath and that looked different from my relationship with Denise (who became my wife!). So, shouldn’t my relationship with Jesus look different than Jason’s. That’s how I thought at least.
The problem is that there is a gulf of difference between talking about having a personal relationship with God and having a relationship with a personal God…or, more accurately, having a relationship with a personal God through the person of Jesus Christ. The first is the common verbiage of the modern evangelical movement; the second is the verbiage of historic Christianity.
Now, if you are reading this, don’t get all excited and angry with me just yet. What I am not saying is that you should not have a deep relationship with God. Have that deep relationship; strive for it and grow in it. Jesus called his disciples “friend” just as God did with Abraham. It is right and proper to desire this kind of relationship that has been shared by so many saints that have gone before you — and that I have been blessed to share as well. This is not of what I speak. So, bear with me.
“Personal” can be used in a variety of ways. We can use the word to refer to something that belongs only to me (my unique relationship with Jesus). We can use the word to refer to an action I take in my life (my personal finances…or the personal/intimate aspect of my relationship with Jesus). Or, we can use the word “personal” to refer to someone who is a distinct person, not an idea or a force of nature (God being a person, not a force). And, when you recognize that this third way of using the term — that God is a personal God…hence He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons — then that gives you a little bit of perspective on what the church has meant by a “personal God” (at least up until the 20th century).
So, theologically, when we talk about God being “personal,” we are talking about the reality that he exists as a person (in the case of God, as Three Persons). This distinguishes him from the gods of Hinduism and other pantheistic sects which have a view of their gods that presents themselves as forces of nature. That distinguishes the God of the Bible from the god of Buddhism, which exists more as a cosmic force that unites all things together. It also distinguishes the God of the Bible from Deism which views god as being distinct and separate from mankind and thus impersonal in every sense. Even the god of liberalism can be viewed in an impersonal ways as he is viewed as little more than a social construct and not as a sovereign God. The god of Islam, could arguably be spoken of as “personal” in this sense, yet he is certainly not the kind of person with which one could have a relationship in any meaningful sense of the term.
And so, perhaps when we talk about God being “personal,” we ought to listen more to historic Christianity than to twentieth-century “Billy Grahamesque” pietistic evangelism. Perhaps we ought to be saying, “Do you have a relationship with the personal God of the Bible through Jesus Christ?” That’s more of a mouthful, but it conveys a deeper and more accurate truth than I was given, given the language I heard growing up.
Only One God
“Hear of Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
“You believe that God is one? You do well; the demons believe that also…and they tremble.” (James 2:19)
“A mediator means there is more than one, but God is one.” (Galatians 3:20)
“And now, Yahweh our God, please save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth will know that you, Yahweh are God and you alone.” (2 Kings 19:19)
“One who sacrifices to a god shall be destroyed; Yahweh alone — to Him alone!” (Exodus 22:20)
The Bible is clear that while God exists in three persons, he is one and exists over and above all things both that he has created and that has been created in the imaginations of men. The question sometimes gets asked, “Aren’t there other gods that people worship?”
To answer that question properly, one must first offer a definition of what constitutes a “god.” If, by a “god,” what you mean is anything that people worship (rightly or wrongly), then I suppose that we could say that there are many gods. There would be the obvious things that come to mind: images of Buddha or of the Catholic saints (or Mary), Asherah or Totem poles, and idols to Hindu gods like Shiva. Money falls into this category as people will pursue it with all of their energy rather than pursuing God with all of their energy. Famous people are another illustration of the gods people bow down before and fawn over.
Self also can be defined as a god by this standard. We live in a culture of narcissism and people obsess over their looks, their image, their pleasure, and their self-gratification. Body art, plastic surgery, and even “gender re-assignment” have become commonplace and drug use has become an epidemic. On one extreme, people are working to genetically modify embryos to emphasize “more desirable” traits and on the other hand, children are being murdered in the name of “Family Planning.” Worse yet, like the Israelites in Canaan who ignored and participated in the paganism in their midst rather than pushing it out of the land, the Church largely ignores these false gods in our midst rather than pushing these false gods out of our churches.
And further, when you broaden the definition of a word so much that it can mean almost anything, then the word ultimately means nothing. To put it another way, our ability to communicate with one another is predicated on the idea that words have a limited semantic range. If “god” is defined as anything that man bows down to, everything becomes a god and the word is ultimately meaningless.
To this end, let me offer a more narrow definition from a Christian perspective. And this is to borrow the definition that St. Anselm used when he was devising his “Ontological Proof” for the existence of God. His definition is: “God is a being which no greater being can be imagined.” To narrow that down even more, one might point out that this definition demands that God not be one of a subset of gods but instead, that God is in a class of his own — the being par excellence. By this definition, there can only be one God — and this is the definition found in the Bible. Whether people worship themselves, the works of their hands, or demons, none fo these are in the same class as God — he is truly unique and alone in terms of his person and character; none is like him, no not one.
And to this end, both Christian theology and Hidelberg Catechism, question 25 insist on God being defined as One being even when we are defining him as three persons. It is an essential of the faith and non-negotiable in Christian theology.
I Smell Hell!
It is said that the American evangelist, Peter Cartwright (1785-1872), would pronounce these words when he arrived in a new town to preach: “I smell Hell!” And, much like the other revivalists of his era, he would find a place to set up and he would preach to whomever would listen. And indeed, people would come to listen. That was the culture in America during what people sometimes refer to as the “Second Great Awakening” or what others would simply call the close of the “Great Awakening” in America. Dates and labels I will leave to other historians to catalogue.
What I find to be a sad testimony as to the nature of the culture is that the language of preaching has changed. If Cartwright were alive today, his message might sound more like Billy Graham’s, “God wants you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior,” or even worse, like Joel Osteen’s, “God wants you to be happy and to have the desires of your heart!” Whatever the popular preachers and evangelists may sound like, it seems that wrath and hell, fire and brimstone, and repentance from sin has been all but forgotten — or is only mentioned in passing and not stressed. Indeed, people want a God who will love them just as they are, not a God that is angry with them as a result of their sin.
Yet, what people want and what the Bible teaches in this case are two different things — surprise, surprise. Yet, rather than be a steward of the oracles of God, the church has largely become a steward of modest worldly blessings and blind promises. G. Campbell Morgan used to say that it is the duty of the church to correct the spirit of the age rather than to follow it; sadly, too many congregations look around at dwindling numbers and opt to follow the spirit of the age, watering down the message of the Gospel until it is no Gospel at all, in the hopes of drawing more people in with a “more loving” message.
Folks, if someone defines “more loving” as being warm and fuzzy, tell them to go buy a nice sweater or a dog. A friendly Alaskan Malamute or an over-sized turtle-neck sweater from Alpaca wool will give you all of the warm, fuzzy loving that you need at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience of going to a popular church service or crusade meeting. But if that was truly love, then you wouldn’t need either God or the Bible.
Love is being told how to see the world accurately and in a way that is eternally truthful. Love is being made aware that there is a judgment coming one day and that unless we approach the Father through Jesus Christ the Son, we will be eternally condemned to righteous torment and wrath. Love is being told clearly that our works cannot make God happy with us and they amount to little more than dung in the eyes of a holy God. Love is telling a person that unless they repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ, nothing but sorrow will fill their lives, but if they do, even the greatest joys of earth cannot compare to the joy of heaven. Love is being honest and clear that if you were able to smell it, you would smell Hell on every American street corner and that most people have gotten so accustomed to it that they do not even notice.
Cartwright and I might disagree on a number of points of our theology and we also might disagree on our approaches to evangelism (he used a number of high-pressure tactics rather than trusting in the Holy Spirit for true conversion), but we are agreed on this starting point. Hell is in our midst and it is in the midst of our churches. The kind and culturally accommodating approach to evangelism has not done anyone any favors. Indeed, God will still call his own to himself despite their methodology, but ought not we seek to hold fast to the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures? Ought we not say that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus Christ the Son? Ought we not proclaim that unless you repent and believe in Jesus you will perish eternally? And ought we not trust the Holy Spirit to prepare soil in men and women so that they will bear the fruit of repentance in their lives? Ought our message not begin with vague promises or warmth and love, but instead be warnings to repent and believe? Like Cartwright, when I look at the world around me, “I smell Hell.”
Trinitarian Theology
There are many different religions in this world of ours and sadly, there are many different people who claim that all religions are simply different cultural expressions of the same faith. Of course, the latter portion of that statement is utterly irrational as all of these different religions are mutually exclusive in nature, but that is not my focus this morning. My focus this morning is on the nature of our Triune God (Three Persons but one Divine being) and how our theology reflects that reality.
You see, when the Heidelberg Catechism begins to explore the Apostles’ Creed, it asks, “How are these articles (the Articles of the Apostles’ Creed) divided up (Question 24)? The answer, of course, looks back to the nature of the Trinity and states that they are broken into three parts based on the person and work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
For most of us who grew up in traditional churches, this is pretty straight-forward language. We speak of the Trinity because that is how the Bible presents our God and those people who reject the doctrine of the Trinity reject the God we worship and are thus not Christian (again, this is why the Christian God is not the God worshiped by the non-Christian tribes and nations). But the question I would like to explore is why it is important that our theology reflect the Trinitarian nature of our God.
Again, we could approach this from a number of different angles. We could explore all the texts of the Bible that support the Trinity — there are many. We could point out that our Baptisms are to be in the Triune name and that the Christian benediction also employs the Trinitarian name of God (2 Corinthians 13:14). But even more basic than that, what is our starting point for theology? The answer to that question needs to tie in with the essential nature of our God.
God is both one and three — one in essence and three in person. Thus our theology (which literally means, “Things about God”) needs to be essentially a reflection of our three in one God. Wherever the Father is, so too is the Son and the Spirit. Wherever the Son is, so too is the Father and the Spirit. And, wherever the Spirit is, so too is the Father and the Son. These three persons are not truly separable from one another in their works or in their attributes though each tends to be described in the Bible as being a primary actor in certain ways: God the Father in Creation, God the Son in our Redemption, and God the Spirit in our sanctification. And hence, the Apostles’ Creed is designed to reflect this reality. A theology that does not stress and protect this united nature of our Godhead leads people into error of one sort or another.
In the end, both Heidelberg and the Creed seek to preserve this tension and keep us focused on our Triune God. Hence its answer and hence a starting point to ensure that our theology is Christian by ensuring that our Theology is Triune in nature.
There is Intellectual Content to the Christian Faith
Soapbox time… One of the things that really bugs me is when people believe that they can believe whatever they want to believe and yet still be called a “Christian.” True, there are certain things that are disagreed upon within the Christian faith — subject and mode of baptism, forms of liturgy, and the nature of the end times for example. But there are also some ideas and facts that are non-negotiable and are a “must be affirmed” part of the Christian faith.
This means two things…first, that there is intellectual content to the Christian faith. In other words, there are ideas that a person must positively affirm to be considered a Christian. Or, maybe even simpler yet, Christianity is not a set of feelings that you might have toward God or fellow man. It is not that “fuzzy-warm” sense that all things are going to be okay. And being a Christian (and with that, your assurance of salvation) has a great deal more to do with what you think than what you feel inwardly.
Think about it this way: there is a saying in America that the only things that are guaranteed are death and taxes. Let’s take the second part of that. Every year, come mid-April, people in America need to file their income tax paperwork (or an extension in some cases). If you do not file your taxes by this time than you can be assured that the IRS is going to visit you at some stage of the ballgame. As Americans, we are assured of this — that is the job of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That assurance does not come from any set of feelings that we may or may not have. It comes from the facts that surrounding what the IRS is and what it is designed to do. It is built on an intellectual content about the IRS that is defined not by you, but by the IRS.
Similarly, when it comes to our assurance of salvation, we too must recognize that this assurance does not come from our inward feelings or preferences. It comes from our knowledge of God — who he is, what he has done, and what he has promised to his elect. Feelings and preferences are irrelevant in this case. We know what we know about God because God has revealed these things about himself…feelings about God are irrelevant. All weight must be based on what has been revealed in the Scriptures.
The second thing that this means is that if we are going to call ourselves Christian, we must affirm those things that God reveals about himself and cannot confirm that which is contrary. For example, there are some people who claim to be Christian yet deny the Triune nature of our God. Such is an untenable position. The God presents himself within the Scriptures as three persons yet one God. The creeds and confessions do not create this doctrine, the creeds and confessions simply articulate in a concise form what the Scriptures teach in a more exhaustive way. And thus, there are not only teachings that the Christian must positively affirm to be a Christian, but there are also positions which one cannot reject.
And thus, question 22 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks, what does the Christian have to believe (intellectual content of the Christian faith)? The answer? “All that is taught in the Gospel…” And what is the Gospel? Good News — and that is all of Scripture. What comes next is how the Apostles’ Creed is helpful in explaining this in concise form (so long as we understand the Creed rightly). And though we are not saved by our knowledge, those who are brought to Christ in faith submit their understanding to the authority of Christ just as they do every other aspect of their lives.
Do We Really Need Seminaries?
Let me preface what I am about to say with the statement that I had an exceptional experience in a formal seminary atmosphere. In RTS, Jackson, I had the privilege of sitting under some men who were pastors at heart but who were also exceptional thinkers, communicators, and authors. I also made some friendships that have remained with me to this day. I am truly grateful for that time. Further, I teach in a formal seminary context in Ukraine and definitely see the logistical advantages to a formal, institutional model.
So, with that prefacing my comments below, please do not think that I am advocating an overthrow of the formal, or institutional, model. Yet, having now served Christ’s church full-time for more than a decade, I have come to re-think some of the assumptions that we make when it comes to training men for the ministry…one of which is how that training is to be done. Further, as a Reformed thinker, I have asked myself, is this model consistent with who we are as Reformed Christians or, have we yielded too much ground to Rome — in some ways, I fear that the latter may very well be true.
To begin with, the term “Seminary” comes from the Latin word for a “seedbed.” I have written on this before, but at the very heart of this is the notion that “seminarial” training, by the definition of the word is preparatory in nature and is not meant to be advanced study. Before everyone gets all wound up, let me explain what I mean by this. I am not saying that pastors ought not be scholars — folks, we must be. Our role is to be a teacher of the church, a guard on the wall against heresy, and a trainer of men and women when it comes to thinking correctly about their faith. We must be good scholars — it is a non-negotiable for the ministry as we are “pastors and teachers” according to Paul.
Interestingly, the term “seminary” finds its formal origins in the Council of Trent, a Roman reaction to the Reformation. At the heart of the Reformation was the conviction that the average person in the pews needed to be able to read and understand the whole of the Scriptures for himself. As a result, cities within which the Reformation set its roots found themselves forming schools to train people in theology — the Geneva Academy was a direct result of this mindset (hence, seminary being preparatory for the whole of the Christian life). Rome forcefully insisted that theological training belonged in the Academy, not in the pews (see chapter XVIII). This effectively limited theological training to the priesthood and took it out of the hands of the laymen — the suggestion that theology is too technical and complicated for the average believer (sadly, a view perpetuated in many protestant churches today).
When you assume that “seminary” is meant for advanced training, you not only discourage the average person in the pews from pursuing such Biblical education, but you end up with a context where the word itself no longer parallels the metaphoric value of its meaning. Think about it this way…here in western Pennsylvania, we have a relatively short growing season due to our climate and the fact that we have the potential of frost through most of May. Thus, if you are going to plant vegetables like tomatoes, the seeds need to be started in protected “seminaries” — seedbeds inside a greenhouse of one sort or another. The seedbed allows them to grow unmolested by the weather until they are ready to be planted in the ground in late May or early June.
Compared to the mature plant, these plants you have grown inside are small and they bear no fruit. It is not until they are hardened to direct sunlight and the winds of the outdoors, are pollinated by the insects and the wind, and have their roots sunk deep into our rocky Pennsylvania soil that the plants grow strong and then bear fruit. Do you see how the analogy of the language works? The seedbed (the seminary) is a protected place of basic training and real growth and maturity will not take place until the seminarian is planted in the world. So, where should you expect the formation of deep theological roots? It happens as the minister goes out of the time of training and into the world, feverishly studying so as to be able to engage and respond to the challenges of his environment. Too often, seminarians today think of their seminary training as terminal and they rarely pick up a theological textbook beyond the days of the formal classroom. The people of Christ’s church (including the pastors) have lost a great deal by submitting to Rome’s model.
The other challenge that goes hand-in-glove with the model established by Trent is that if a man wants to go to seminary for theological training, most often he must sell his home, resign from his job, and move somewhere “else” for that training. This creates, if nothing else, a financial hardship on the family, in many cases, forcing the wives to work outside of the home, and requires student loans. Thus, seminarians often find themselves graduating seminary with a load of personal debt as they enter into a job where typically the salary is not commensurate with the degree of training involved. In turn, many will be paying off student loans for the vast majority of their career.
Further, when a family relocates to attend seminary, this effectively removes the family from the life of the local church wherein his gifts and calling was discerned. This means that the local church which is sending him for training cannot effectively oversee the training he is receiving (should this not be overseen by the Pastor and elders?). This also means that the local church is not directly benefitting from the training this man receives — for example, he is not teaching Sunday School Classes, working with youth, visiting shut-in members, or occasionally filling the pulpit. Furthermore, this perpetuates the unBiblical idea that theological training does not belong in the local church.
This also perpetuates the view that the local pastor is not qualified to train another minister. People justify this by stating that the minister is too busy during the week in his duties of pastoral care to study and teach deep theological truths. But, what if the congregation, instead of the pastor, saw it as their calling to do the majority of the pastoral care under the oversight of the Elders and the Deacons? Would that not be consistent with what Paul teaches in Ephesians 4:12? Is this not the reason that the Apostles instituted the Diaconate in the first place (Acts 6:1-6)? Ought not the ministry of prayer and the Word be the pastor’s first and primary role in the life of the church? And if this is the case, ought not the role of training up new men to serve as pastors be a significant part of that role? Did God not bless the church in Acts 7 when they kept these roles clear? Once again, the bad model of Rome finds itself doing damage to rather than aiding the Church of Jesus Christ.
A Thought…
As I regularly tell my children, criticism isn’t of much value unless it is constructive criticism. So, what are some options that might address the challenge we face?
To begin with, given the electronic resources available to us, we need to make better use of them. Some schools, like The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS), have already moved in this direction. This uses resources like online books, lectures on iTunesU, and similar resources, studied with a mentoring model. Vast readings can also be purchased cheaply in online bookstores and can be acquired for free through Google Books, Monergism, CRTA, Third Millennium, and Reformed Books Online to name a few.
One may argue that online study cannot replace face to face interaction with Biblical scholars. And that very well may be true, but there are solutions for that as well. To begin with, of all the Biblical scholars I have known, the vast majority of them would be honored if someone offered to buy them lunch in exchange for the opportunity to pick their brains for 30 or 40 minutes. In a case like this, have 3-4 questions prepared, tell them that ahead of time and don’t abuse their time. Further, many are willing to answer direct emails or recommend books on a given subject.
Here’s the thing, top-notch scholars do not need to be teaching survey classes. In fact, were I to take a wager, most would rather not teach survey courses but would instead prefer to teach detailed studies of a book of the Bible or of an aspect of theology. Let said scholars teach that which is directly related to their fields of expertise and allow students to gain their basic Biblical knowledge on their own. Let institutions have entrance exams to determine Biblical understanding and let professors teach seminar classes in their expertise. It would change the dynamics quite a bit, but were seminars held for two weeks a quarter, the necessity for relocation would be reduced if not eliminated — two weeks of vacation becomes two weeks of intensive study under a world-respected expert in a given field.
Another option is for communities of like-minded churches to form mini-seminaries to cover at least the basics of the Bible and theology. Truly, mature pastors ought also be able to teach deep and complex points of theology, but I also recognize that “ought” does not yield “is” (the moralistic fallacy). Sadly, pastors often see their seminary education as terminal rather than being a seed-bed and thus do not continue their studies beyond their formal institutional schooling. In the case of a community seminary, this also opens opportunities for members who fill the pews of churches to also gain Biblical and Theological training. This then, also provides a central place that can afford to occasionally pay a respected expert to come and give a seminar on a particular subject.
Not only could such a community seminary be housed in an area church, but if there were sufficient interest, it could be housed by a local Christian school — their leadership is often like-minded with a group of area churches and their classrooms are largely dormant in the evenings. The Christian school in Florida, where I served as a teacher/administrator was regularly having the conversation of what it might look like were we to start a Christian college on campus, hosting evening classes for the community.
The question of Accreditation is often raised. To begin with, one must ask what it is that they are trying to accomplish by accrediting. If it is just a matter of accountability, one can accomplish that with a board made up of Pastors and Elders from the like-minded churches establishing the seminary. In many cases, the real purpose of accreditation has to do with student loans that can be achieved from the government. Yet, if education is done in-house and online, it can be done more or less for free or at a nominal cost if there is enough interest (perhaps investing money to build a common library that the students could use or hiring a part-time or full-time administrative assistant to keep things running smoothly or perhaps even to help with grading. The reality is, what right does the state have to dictate what theological education ought to look like? I say that it has none.
And again, presuming cooperation by like-minded churches, the presbytery or classis of each church involved could be part of the oversight of the “mini-seminary.” This gives them direct oversight of what is being taught and how it is being taught and arguably provides for better cooperation between the churches of the differing denominations as well. In addition to accountability, it provides for a smooth transition into the examining committees of each denominational group for those candidates preparing for their ministerial trials.
Here’s a novel idea, were churches to really embrace this more decentralized model, for those students who have graduated from all of the preliminary classes and survey courses, then churches create roles and jobs for them in the context of the church so that advanced training can take place outside of the seedbed classroom. This form of mentorship and in-depth teaching in small groups is invaluable to both student and congregation. Part of this internship could also include serving in those roles commonly associated with church secretaries, youth pastors, and visiting pastors — placing trained and Biblically mature men into the life of church leadership alongside of volunteers who have hopefully also made aspects of this Biblical training a part of their lives. That way, men graduating from seminary have already been trained in every level of ministry from making bulletins, organizing activities, visiting with the sick and elderly, evangelizing the lost, and the ministry of the pulpit.
Something needs to be said about degrees in this conversation. And while I am considered by much of my family as a bit of an academic, I think that the American drive toward degrees and titles behind their names is a bit overrated. Brothers, I remind you of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:8 about desiring the title of Rabbi — in modern equivalents, “Doctor.” We are Pastors and Elders and Deacons. These are the titles that God has given to the church. This does not mean that we ought not strive for advanced training, it just means we ought not covet the Title and content ourselves with the title of the office we fill. Interestingly enough, for many years, to be called a “Doctor of the Church” was an honorary title given posthumously based on the contribution that the person made to the teaching of the church. Would that not be a better model? Sadly, honorary degrees tend to be looked down upon in western society, though I think they should be valued over and above any degree that you might earn from an institution.
And so, we have both some critiques and an offer of constructive criticism. Will anything come of it? This, I do not know. I am already involved with TNARS because I believe in what they are doing and would love to see the next step taken. In the meantime, most likely, churches will continue sending their best men away to be trained in a seminary somewhere else without the oversight of the Elders who are sending and without the instruction these men receive benefitting the local church in discernible ways. In addition, they will continue to play into Rome’s worldview that theological training is only for a sub-class in the church, not for everyone — a worldview that is utterly alien to the Reformed faith though it has been embraced by far too many within our communion. Yet, think how much stronger our churches would be were we to have a Biblically-committed seminary in every community?
How to get there? Much of the groundwork has been laid by groups like TNARS and other smaller, “community” seminary models like City Seminary in Sacramento or Indianapolis Theological Seminary. Yet, for the next step to be taken, a working model committed to not following down the path of Trent and the institution must be established…somethign that takes both time and money. So, I suppose I should say, if this idea resonates with you and you want to put your money where your mouth is, then let’s start a conversation. Otherwise, pray for the church as we go into a new year and head towards a new decade.
Nothing is Truly Free
It’s been closing in on twenty years since my wife and I packed our bags and moved from rural Maryland to Jackson, Mississippi so that I could attend seminary. And though that seems like almost another life, one question I was asked stands out still today. You see, part of my application to attend seminary included a telephone interview in which I was asked to share a little about my faith and walk with Christ. In that interview, the interviewer asked, “Are you saved by faith or by works?” My response, one practiced both in my personal witness and from the pulpit at that time was, “We are saved by grace alone; not by works.”
The interviewer pressed me, “Not by any works at all?” I said, “My works are of no benefit to my salvation.” Once more he asked the same question, “Any works?”
Now you see, my mother didn’t raise any dummies, so I got to thinking more closely about the interviewer’s question. What was it that he was trying to fish out of me. I knew my theology and I knew what the Apostle Paul said in Romans and Ephesians about salvation by grace, but I recognized he was fishing for something, so I thought it through again. Were there any works involved in my salvation? Certainly not on my part. My own salvation was a story of God’s glorious victory over a rebellious sinner, a sinner who only came to faith kicking and screaming because I knew the lifestyle to which God was calling me. My only contribution was dragging my heels as best as I could against God’s irresistible grace. No, there were no works of my own that contributed to my salvation, it was entirely a work of Christ. And right there, it struck me as for what the interviewer was fishing. I said, “It is only by the work of Christ that I am saved.” And I could almost see his smile through the telephone.
One thing that we sometimes miss is that God’s grace, while free to us, is not truly free. It cost someone something, and that someone was His Son, Jesus. The just demands of the Law had to be paid and they had to be paid in full. I can’t do that for myself, let alone for another. And thus, this work Jesus did on my behalf and on behalf of every believer throughout the history of mankind. This is the work that Jesus did on the cross of Calvary. Indeed, it was a work found both in Christ’s active obedience (fulfilling the Law of God perfectly in this life) and in his passive obedience (receiving upon himself the wrath of his Father for my sins and the sins of every believer throughout history). And, in this sense, we are saved by works — works found in the merit of Christ. In that, we receive free grace so that no man may boast.
And so, Question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism closes with this as a reminder: “These are freely given by God and he does it out of grace alone for the sake of Christ’s merit.” It is what theologians will call a “vicarious” sacrifice — one in which Jesus does the work in which we benefit. We receive it freely by God’s grace alone…yet, it is for Christ’s merit and he is rightly praised for this work. Though we receive it freely, there was a terrible price paid for our redemption.
Forgiveness, Everlasting Righteousness, and Salvations for Others and for Me
One of the beauties of the Heidelberg Catechism is that much of its language is found in the first person — “I” believe this to be true or that applies to “me.” Unlike many of the other Reformed Catechisms and Confessions, this makes Heidelberg stand out as a very personal and intimate profession of belief with rich pastoral overtones (a testimony to the pastor’s heart of Ursinus and Olevianus, its principle drafters).
Question 21 illustrates the importance of this approach in first person as it asks about the nature of true faith. And here, one of the statements is that the person with true faith believes not only that forgiveness, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are possible and worked by Christ for others, but the person who confesses this answer of the Catechism professes that these things are worked for him or her personally. More simply, it affirms that with faith comes the assurance of salvation. And, pastorally speaking, assurance is one of those questions that people struggle with the most.
What is interesting is the question of how and where people seek to find their assurance. In pentecostal circles, assurance is rooted in experience and feelings, hence worship services are built around seeking to generate that experiential faith in the person. The problem with this, of course, is two-fold. First, experiences can be created and manipulated — lighting, hands in the air for prolonged periods, and music are all designed to artificially create in a person a sense of euphoria which is then equated with the work of the Holy Spirit. The second part of the problem is that when a person bases assurance on their experience of God’s presence (no matter how genuine that experience might be), that sets them up on a kind of spiritual roller-coaster because for every height of experience there will be lows as well. This leaves a person with no ongoing assurance of salvation.
In Arminian circles outside of pentecostalism (Methodists, Freewill Baptists, etc…), assurance tends to be rooted in the decision the person has made to be a follower of Jesus. Not only does this make salvation God’s response to man’s action (something not testified to in the Bible), but once again it establishes a theological context where people can lose their salvation. Indeed, what if one, due to a series of events, “chooses” wrongly and loses assurance. Hence, in churches such as these, much more emphasis is placed on the “Altar Call” and on constantly renewing their commitment to Christ. As one person who grew up in the Free Methodist movement recently shared with me, “I felt like I had to be re-converted every service.”
In Reformed circles, assurance is not seated within man, but it is found within God where it belongs. Assurance is based on God’s promises to those who come to him in faith. And, since God is unchanging and eternal, those promises are such that they can be relied upon. Truly, that does not neglect the place of experience — Paul writes that the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirits that we are children of God — but our assurance is not based on that experience; it is based on the humble reliance upon God to fulfill his promises to us (personally and individually) as he has done so in others. Such is the nature of God’s assurance and such is the importance of this statement about faith. Faith is the assured knowledge that the things promised to believers in Christ belong to me personally just as they have been given to others — all through faith and because of the completed work of Christ. Thus, in Christ, all of the promises of the Old Testament are yes and amen.
A Sincere Trust
Remember those days when you were first learning to swim, perhaps with your father or mother standing beside the swimming pool, encouraging you to jump in and they would catch you? Perhaps it was learning to ride a two-wheeled bike for the first time and your parent (or maybe a trusted older sibling) was keeping you up, saying “trust me, I’ve got you.” Perhaps the thing to which you can relate is stepping out in a business venture and your partner or backers saying, “trust me, you got this!”
We rely a great deal on trust…and to some extent, if you don’t place your trust in others you end up becoming a curmudgeon and a cynic and you isolate yourselves from relationships. But even though trust is a part of most of our relationships, often we do not spend much time thinking about what trust happens to be.
The dictionary defines trust in terms of your “belief in the reliability” of another — in other words, it points to someone or something that is outside of you upon which you rely. In many ways, the word is almost synonymous with the word, “faith.” Trust is that recognition that if you rely upon another person, they will not let you down.
And so, when the Catechism, in Question 21, asks about true faith, it speaks of having a sincere trust that the Holy Spirit works in me through the Gospel. What is this all about? The Spirit has many roles in the life of the believer — he is counselor (John 16:7), teacher (John 14:26; 1 John 2:27), and giver of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) amongst other things. But most basically, His role is to conform the life of the believer into the image of the Son.
How does the Spirit do this? The most basic way he does this task is through the Gospel — through the word studied and preached and applied to the life of the Christian. We might even more simply speak of this in the context of the “ordinary means of grace” or in the context of the “keys of the kingdom,” both of which we will talk about more later in this catechism.
And so, an aspect of True faith, or saving faith as some would put it, is the trust that the Spirit is at work in me, conforming me into the image of God’s Son (Romans 8:29) — in other words, that tomorrow I might look more like Jesus than I did today. Trusting also implies that we act upon that trust — striving as empowered by the Holy Spirit toward this goal of honoring Christ, whether through applying the Ten Commandments to my life as a way to grow in my sanctification or in seeking to be obedient to the many other commands we would see Jesus, our Lord, set before us. In other words, genuine trust requires an action on my part — a response to that trust — jumping in the pool, riding the bike, entering that business venture. We act in faith in the confidence that the Spirit is acting in us through the Gospel.
And note one more thing…it is the trust that the Spirit is acting in us through the Gospel — this does not require (or even speak of!) supernatural works (this I would argue, ended at the close of the first century with the close of the Canon). It is through the Gospel — the written revelation of God contained in the Bible. A humble and faithful life, rooted in the Word of God, is a far greater testimony than all the “miracles” that man might like to think he can produce.
The World is Upside Down
“There is an evil that I see under the sun, like an unintentional sin coming from the presence of one who rules: the fool is made high and great and the rich dwell in a lowly state. I have seen slaves on horses and ambassadors walking.”
(Ecclesiastes 10:5-7)
There are two ways in which one can read this text. The first is perhaps the more obvious manner of Solomon’s witnessing how oftentimes the affairs of life reverse the roles that people ought to find themselves playing in culture. And, our temptation might be to think that this is just an illustration of ironic justice, but more often than not, when employed, it becomes a dangerous thing.
One of the dystopian novels that George Orwell is best known for is Animal Farm. This story is meant to illustrate the dangers and changes of fortune that took place during the communist revolution in Russia, but it illustrates Solomon’s point as well. Here there are the pigs, lowly and wallowing in the mud, leading the animal’s rebellion against Farmer Jones. Yet, by the end of the story, it would be the pigs who dressed as men, but this time, abusing the rest of the animals on the farm. Essentially, the slaves were riding horses and making the ambassadors of kings walk beside them.
In my own country, a whole new generation of people are advocating for forms of socialized government due to the problems and corruptions that our own government contains. Now, there is no doubt that our government needs reform, but socialism is not the way to accomplish that aim. Historically, it is the bloodiest and most corrupt form of governmental control that has been known to man…and what is more, it creates contexts like this, where the poor fools are honored and those who have built businesses wisely are torn down and treated as fools. He who shouts the loudest gains and audience with the masses and before long, the pigs are in power, turning the whole farm into a sty.
There is a second way of looking at this that embraces more of a spiritual reading of the text, for if we define the fool and the rich man not in terms of worldly wealth or success, but interpret that in the context of the wisdom that comes from the Scriptures, then once again we see Solomon lamenting how those who are foolish spiritually are often exalted and those who are spiritually wise are often in poor places. And again, we see that this evil is just as prominent today as it was in Solomon’s day.
In our day, it is the rich and famous that we celebrate as a society — actors, musicians, athletes, etc… not those who bring wisdom to the people: pastors, teachers, counselors, etc… The first group is exalted more, is paid better, and is given tremendous grace for the antics they pull. The latter group often is treated as expendable — bring them on board, use them until they are spent, and then replace them with the next guy. This is a more recent phenomenon in our American culture. There was a time in which old pastors and old teachers were valued, honored, and sought after. There was a time when what pastors were expected to do most was to study the scriptures…now that is often the thing that is least valued of the things they do.
And, as a result, the spirituality of our broader culture in America is collapsing. The fools are celebrated and the spiritually wise are largely ignored. The loudest voice continues to attract the attention of the crowd. And with Solomon, I too would pronounce it as evil.
How to Respond to An Angry Boss
“If the spirit of a ruler rises up against you, your position shall not be put to rest, for calmness will put to rest great sins.”
(Ecclesiastes 10:4)
Both Jewish and Christian translators wrestle with how to handle the translation of this verse…and both groups fall on various sides of the conversation. Literally, the text begins, “If the spirit of the ruler…” — the term in question that is used here is רוּחַ (ruach), or “spirit.” Most are in agreement that what Solomon has in view here is when a ruler or other man of power happens to become angry with you — he loses his temper or is enraged (the idea of that spirit “rising up”). As a result, many translations will render it more idomatically (see the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc… along with Rabbinical Scholars like David Altshuler {Metzudot}). Other translations (see the KJV, YLT, WEB, etc… along with the Rabbi Bahya ibn Paquda) render the text more literally as “spirit.”
My purpose here is not to extol the “more literal” or the “more idiomatic” approach to translation issues, though it is an important conversation to have. Instead, it is to point out that the variations we see between the translations we use do impact how we read and understand the text. Every translation, no matter how formal in nature, is an interpretation and when we understand that important truth, I think it helps us have more confidence in the texts we have when we see differences between our preferred translation and the preferred translation of another.
If we get too hung up here on debating the differences in word choice, though, we will lose the more important application that is found in the text. When you make a ruler angry, don’t just leave your position, don’t step down (unless you are commanded to do so by the ruler), but stay firm and stay calm because that calmness will cover over great sins.
Let’s bring this into our own context and then take it back into the ancient world of the Biblical context. How often people, when their employer is upset with them, just throw up their hands and storm off to write a letter of resignation — or worse yet, storm out the door, saying, “I Quit!” What was that country-western song that was popular several decades ago? “You can take this job and …”
Again, don’t hear me wrong, there is a time to resign from a job. If, perhaps, your employer would require you to do something unethical or that is contrary to God’s word, then you have to obey God and not man — in many cases, this would mean stepping down from your job. Yet, in very many cases, that’s not the context of which I speak. I am speaking of that impulsive response — your employer doesn’t like the way you handled a particular situation or client or perhaps your employer is unhappy about some decisions you have made. True, the meetings that follow may prove to be tense, but a level head and a calm demeanor will go a long way toward working through the problems and over time, allow you to earn the respect of those for whom you work.
I am reminded that when I first started as Chaplain for the Christian School in Florida where I served, the Superintendent and the Principal both told me that the scope and sequence for the Bible department was broken and that the Chapel program needed to be overhauled. When I was hired, the Superintendent told me his plan to fix the chapel program. I tested his plan out and realized very quickly that his plan was going to further damage the already broken system and would not restore it to prominence. Because Chapel was almost entirely under my jurisdiction, I put an abrupt end to the model that had been used, restructured the program, and rebuilt it from scratch.
This did not make my Superintendent happy, it did not make some of the teachers happy, it angered some of the pastors in the community (who were used to coming in and doing their own thing in our Chapel program), and it made some of the students and parents upset. Gratefully, my Superintendent “gave me enough rope to hang myself” and though he did not like my decision, gave me his support. It was a bumpy year and I received not a little bit of grief. Nevertheless, by the grace of God and with the counsel of Solomon in passages like this, I responded gently and with a calm spirit. Further, the whole tone and tenor of Chapel changed for the better and something very healthy (though not perfect) replaced something that was unhealthy and was otherwise broken. “A soft answer turns away wrath,” as Solomon teaches in Proverbs 15:1.
Now, with the principle before us, I encourage you to think about the examples set by Joseph, Daniel, and Esther. Each of these were in positions of power and influence and each had to face challenges brought upon by an impassioned king. Yet, rather than throwing their hands up in the air, they calmly continued doing what God had called them to do and each would be rewarded for their wisdom and tranquility. Shall we not do the same?
Solomon and Reality TV
“And also along the road, as the fool walks, his heart is lacking — he says to all that he is a fool.”
(Ecclesiastes 10:3)
A fool is not so merely in private things, but in public things as well. As he goes through his life, the actions he takes, the decisions he makes, they way he converses all point to his foolishness and little more. In many cases, the fool revels in the attention that his foolishness brings — if he cannot gain fame through wise things, he will gain fame through folly. And for this, his heart (mind, personality, etc…) is lacking.
Daytime television amazes me. Actually, anymore, television in general amazes me. Whether it happens to be a matter of talk shows or the supposed “reality television” that is popular, people will do almost anything to get on television. I must confess, many years ago, I went through a phase where I would occasionally watch a show like Jerry Springer or Judge Judy. And I would sit there amazed, asking myself, “where do they find people like this?” Understand, at this point in my life as a pastor, I have been “around the block a few times” and few things surprise me when it comes to family dynamics. But these folks choose to air all of their “dirty laundry” out for the world to see. That is amazing to me. But, that’s the fool.
Yet, the fool is not just a fool when it comes to earthly things, but with spiritual things as well. The fool lives a life that betrays little or no understanding of the demands of God upon his people nor does he try to live them out. Instead, he acts foolishly and flaunts his spiritual foolishness saying things like, “Yeah, but God will forgive me anyway.” Those who think this way ought to be forewarned of two things. First, that genuine repentance is turning away from the things that you once did and living differently — even thinking differently with respect to those things. Second, God gives a stern warning to those who flaunt their sin thinking God will forgive them anyway. Of this group, God says that he will not be willing to forgive (Deuteronomy 29:19-20).
Friends, pursue wisdom until you live wisely. Along with that, subdue your foolishness and do not flaunt it…that too is a step in the path of growing wise. Pursue God with your whole being and repent of your pursuit of the folly of men.
That Everything God Reveals in His Word is True
“The fullness of your word is truth; everlasting is the judgment of your righteousness.”
(Psalm 119:160)
“But he answered, saying, ‘It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but from every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’”
(Matthew 4:4 — citing Deuteronomy 8:3)
When the Heidelberg Catechism asks the question, “What is True Faith?” (Question 21), the answer begins with the statement that true faith is “the confident knowledge that everything that God reveals in his Word is true.” Every time we recite a creed in church or for another event, we begin with the words, “I believe,” again, implying that there is a body of knowledge that goes along with true, saving faith. But what is the basis for that knowledge? It is the Bible and a commitment to the notion that it is the very word of God and that it is true.
Now, it is easy to critique the liberal church today, which largely seeks to ignore, trivialize, and strip the Word of God of any divine power. And it is even easier to critique the more broadly evangelical churches for picking and choosing what they wish to follow and consider authoritative — paying lip-service to the idea that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, but flatly ignoring things that shake their theological paradigms. It is also easy to critique those churches that are heavily committed to ecumenicism, for they all-too-quickly set the Word aside in favor of fellowship. But fellowship on what basis?
But, let us turn our attention a bit closer to home. We who claim to hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, do we really believe that everything written in his word is Truth? If we genuinely believe that, why are we so often so quiet when people around us treat God’s word as if it is a lie?
Think about it this way, if someone was doing a math problem around us, and was doing the math incorrectly, would we not say something to correct them? If someone around us is using a word wrong, would we not say something like, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”? If someone mentions that they have been eating chicken, lightly toasted, but still largely uncooked, we would insist with them that they cook the meat to prevent an infection.
So, if we will insist on true principles when it comes to earthly things, why not with eternal? If we really believe that one of the marks of true faith is a belief that everything in God’s word is true, we should insist on it and stand for it not only in our own circles, but in the world around us. And, we should insist upon it with ourselves. In other words, if we know the Bible says we should do this or that, we should do this or that — whatever it is that God commands. Whatever.
Is Everyone Saved?
Okay, so call me a naive, but people still surprise me with things that they say and do. For example, a family at the Christian school where I taught exploding at me because I said that regular church attendance was an essential part of growth in Christian maturity (and their Southern Baptist pastor supported them! Yikes!). Or, when first getting involved in the pro-life movement and only one or two protestant pastors in my area being willing to support it (what’s with that?). But probably the time when I was surprised the most (and when I simultaneously angered the most area pastors) was when I was publicly asked, “Is it possible that someone could go to heaven apart from faith in Jesus?” And my answer (that apparently made heads spin) was: “No. Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to the Father and to suggest any other way means that our Bibles are lying to us.” Silly me…no, not really. What a sad state our churches are in if pastors (of all people) will not take a firm stance on that truth).
Nevertheless, there are some professing Christians and some who labor in our communities as Christian pastors who have embraced such a pluralistic view of faith and religion that they are articulating a gospel that is not the Gospel of the Apostle Paul and of the Bible — they are (in Paul’s words) an anathema — accursed. In the words of the Apostle John, they are antichrists. And still, to be politically correct, we accept them into ministerial groups, Christian fellowships, and other associations that are labeled as Christians. Sometimes I wonder with whom do I share more in common, mainline and liberal Christianity or Mormonism? That’s scary. It’s not that I am advocating that Mormons share the Biblical faith, but instead that liberal churches are just as great a cult and a threat as are the other cults of our land. It’s a brave new world in which we live — one where anything and everything can be labeled as “Christian” regardless of whether what they believe lines up with the Bible.
And so, the logical question to ask is, if everyone is lost in Adam (due to Adam’s Original Sin), then is everyone saved in Christ? And the answer is no. One is saved by Grace through Faith (Ephesians 2:8) and only those so ingrafted into Christ by faith are saved (John 3:16-18, 36; 6:44,65; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 3:21-26…and the references go on and on and on). The notion that there is salvation in no other name but in the name of Christ is not only one of the most Biblically defensible positions in the Christian faith, it is also fundamental to the Gospel. If it were possible that people could be saved in any other way than by faith in Jesus Christ, there would be no point to evangelism or missions work…why bother. But, it we take our Bibles seriously, we have a divine mandate to let the world know the good news of Jesus Christ, for how can they know unless one has taken the Word to them and preached it (Romans 10:14-17)?
So, no folks. There are lots of roads that one may take in this world, but only one (not all) lead to heaven. All others doom those upon them to a fiery and dismal death — horror of horrors. If we would be Biblical and faithful to the Word our God has laid down before us, we must hold to this truth and proclaim it regardless of whose feathers might be ruffled in the doing.
Thanksgiving
As Americans, we have many reasons to spend time giving thanks. We have freedoms that we enjoy, both religious and secular. We have an abundance of wealth and resources here — I’ve spent time overseas in a number of places and even the poor in America have far more resources than the poor elsewhere. We need to be grateful for that, though not use that as an excuse to ignore the poor in our midst. Did our Lord not say that we will always have such as these around us? And don’t the Scriptures demand that we care for those who cannot care for themselves?
In most of our cases, this day is a day where we gather with friends and/or family members and celebrate the blessings we have been given around a table laden with food. I think that it is safe to say that the abundance which most Americans enjoy is unsurpassed in this world. So, as I sit here, reflecting this morning before I put our own family’s turkey in the oven, what concerns me the most is that in America, most people will spend the day oblivious to the great spiritual truths for which we ought to be grateful.
Yes, it is true, that in many homes, some sort of a recited “grace” will be offered, asking God to bless our food. Giving God thanks is proper. In many homes as well, there will be a time where people share those things for which they have been grateful — family, jobs, friends, a warm home, and good food. And again, it is right to be thankful for these things. But is there not more?
Of all the Psalms that we have, only one of them is explicitly listed as a “Psalm for Thanksgiving” or as a “Psalm for Giving Thanks” (depending on your translation). That is Psalm 100. Sure, there are many other psalms that speak of giving thanks, do not misunderstand me, but only one whose superscript contains these words.
What is more interesting than that happens to be what the Psalmist gives thanks for. He does not give thanks for friends and family and food and homes — those things for which we normally give thanks — but he ultimately gives thanks for the character and goodness of God and commands that we respond with worship — not just with a prayer around the table…but with worship.
I wonder what it would look like in America if at every Thanksgiving Table, Psalm 100 was at the heart of the prayer of thankfulness — and it was sincerely prayed. I think that the time of worship would overshadow the time of eating. But that is what I think — I’m the preacher, I’m supposed to think like this. But what would it look like if all of us as Christians thought like this? I wonder if God would bless that with revival in our land or in our communities. How interesting it is when Christians speak about desiring revival, yet never act in such a way that would engender revival in their own lives. In most cases, where we were speaking about someone else, what would we call that? Hypocrisy? Maybe? This year, may we not be hypocrites. May we genuinely desire revival and in doing so, may we reorder our lives in such a way as to make the soil of our hearts and family fertile ground for God’s seed to be planted therein.
Bigger, Better, Faster, More
“The words of the wise while at rest will be heard; in the cries for help from a ruler with fools.”
(Ecclesiastes 9:17)
Wisdom will never be listened to in the midst of a mob. How sad it is that in today’s world, the mob who yells loudest is considered the one who has won the day. Wisdom will never be listened to in the midst of panic; the bells of alarm rob our ears of being able to hear. Wisdom will never be listened to in times of fear; self-defense mechanisms are like a trumpet sound we cannot ignore. Wisdom will never be listened to during times of hectic activity — the tyranny of the urgent does not value deep contemplation.
Wisdom is listened to during times of rest. Wisdom must be reflected upon, meditated upon, and pondered. Wisdom must be dined upon like a fine steak, not consumed like a $5 lunch at a fast-food store. Wisdom requires that time be set aside and that all of our attention be given to it. Time to listen for wisdom does not just happen; it must be set aside and it must be protected from the encroachment of the activities of the day.
One of the challenges that we all faced when I worked at the Christian school in Florida is that of setting aside time for reflection — “Is what we are doing the best thing?” Could we be doing things better?” “Is God being glorified in this?” And, the questions go on. The same challenge holds true in the church. There are so many demands that fall into the week that sometimes one wonders if there is a way to just stop the world from turning and get off. There are so many things to do that sometimes budgeting time to talk about spiritual things — about wisdom — seems like a waste of time. We fall into the trap of wanting to “Get it all done” without ever asking why we are doing it and how Christ is glorified in these things. It is not that the activities of church are bad…just the opposite, they are quite good and beneficial…but only when handled with and cared for by wisdom.
As a parent, I find it fascinating that timing has so much to do with having those parental conversations that are designed to impart wisdom to our children. How radically different the outcome of the conversation when things are peaceful and time can be had to talk while at rest than in the busyness of the day. How much less confrontational those conversations are when rest is the key component that defines the context. How much more the wisdom sinks in both to parent and child. Solomon is giving us one of the most practical insights for living that can be offered in the modern age of hustle and bustle…an age “where one more thing” is always being added to life. Friends, “Bigger, Better, Faster, More,” is not always to be desired.
Laboring in Useful Obscurity
“This is also what I have seen of wisdom under the sun — and it was great to me. There was a little city and the men in it were few. A great king came toward it and surrounded it and he built a great siege tower against it. Yet, there was a man in it who was impoverished but wise and saved it — the city by his wisdom. Yet, the man was not remembered for he was a poor man. And so I say that wisdom is better than greatness though the wisdom of an impoverished man is scorned and his words are not heard.”
(Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
Which is better? To be useful and forgotten or to be a fool and remembered forever? How often, in our modern age, the desire to be remembered is so great that many embrace foolishness just so that they will be remembered. Yet, what kind of legacy is that? We all have a natural desire to be remembered and to leave our mark on the world, but this hardly seems the way to do it.
When I served as Chaplain of the Christian School in Florida, the Superintendent, Michael Mosley, used to cite a medieval phrase quite often: “to labor in useful obscurity.” His point was two-fold. First, not everyone can be the hero or the person in the limelight…and not everyone ought to be because the person up front needs people working behind him to make it possible to be up front. The second reason that he used this phrase was to be a reminder to all that the only person’s whose name needs be remembered is that of Christ’s. If our name and all of our accomplishments are forgotten, but Christ is glorified in our interactions with others, then our lives will have great meaning.
In the case of Solomon’s story (perhaps a parable, perhaps a historic account, either interpretation will suffice), a city was besieged by a greater power and (by human standards) seemed doomed to fall. Yet the city was delivered by a poor but wise man. The deliverance was remembered, but the name of the man was soon forgotten — who wants an impoverished man as a national hero anyway?
Solomon’s conclusion, though, is the right one. Wisdom is better than might. Nations rise and fall but wisdom endures in the hearts of God’s people. Might will bring short-lived glory, but what is better — glory for a season and then captivity or wisdom that endures and preserves freedom? Need I say any more?
Though our names may be forgotten, if Christ is exalted, what more ought we want? The right answer is nothing. Let Christ be remembered — and we are remembered in the midst, so be it; if we are forgotten in the midst, so be it. It is Christ to whom we (and our works) must point.
The Gospel in the Old Testament
One of the earliest heresies that the church had to face was that of Marcion and his rejection of what we call the Old Testament today. Marcion went as far as to say that the God of the Old Testament was a wrathful and angry God and that the God of the New Testament was a God of love, acceptance, and peace. He went out of his way to emphasize the dissimilarities between the Hebrew Scriptures and the distinctly Christian Scriptures rather than to emphasize the unity between the whole of God’s word.
Such an error has not been unique to Marcion or the Marcionites. While Classic Dispensationalism does not outright reject the Old Testament as Marcion did, they do emphasize disparity between the Testaments, in particular in their view that Old Testament Israel was different from and not a precursor to the Christian Church…thus presenting Christ as having two distinct brides. This has arguably led to some churches identifying themselves as “New Testament Churches,” though I’m not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean. Most recently, the popular preacher, Andy Stanley, has taught that the church should “unhitch” itself from the Old Testament and that Christians are not required to obey the Ten Commandments. So much for God being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow or that not an iota or a dot will fall away from the Law until the heavens and the earth pass away.
We, on the other hand, teach that the Bible is one, united book and that everything from Genesis through Revelation is perfectly consistent and that the New Testament but that it is impossible to really understand the New Testament without being well-grounded in the Old Testament (hence we give out full Bibles, not just New Testaments and Psalms when we evangelize people). Further, I would argue (as I have stated many times before) that the Gospel is found interwoven throughout all of the Old Testament, and again, the Gospel as seen in the New Testament doesn’t make much sense apart from seeing the Gospel in the Old Testament.
The Heidelberg Catechism puts this notion succinctly when it states (answer 19) that “God initially revealed it (the Gospel) in Paradise (this is a reference to Genesis 3:15), but afterwards proclaimed it through the holy Patriarchs (Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc…) and prophets (Moses and the Prophets of old), as well as foreshadowing it by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the Law. In other words, as you read the scriptures of the Old Testament, you should see Christ showing up everywhere. The 19th Century preacher, Charles Spurgeon, argued that the Bible was like a roadmap where every verse leads to Christ if you know how to read the map properly. Amen and Amen to that.
And to those who would look for ways to “unhitch” from the Old Testament or to deny the continuity of the Scriptures from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, repent. You are not only robbing yourself of the richness and the fulness of God’s Word, but you are leading people astray from the whole Gospel. You will be held accountable for this (James 3:1).
What is Non-Negotiable?
There is a well-known phrase that goes back to Saint Vincent of Lerins (died AD 445) that goes as follows: “In Essentials unity, in Non-Essentials liberty, and in all things Charity.” And, in principle, the idea is a good thing. Confessing Christians are commanded in scripture to treat one another with love — ἀγάπη (agape) even. Those who cannot or who will not act with love toward other Christians are not really Christians in the first place (1 John 3:14-15). Further, there are plenty of areas in which we might disagree with Christian brothers (the application of this verse or the interpretation of that passage) and no essential piece of theology is altered. I remember the first time that I preached the “Parable of the Steward of Unrighteousness” (Luke 16:1-13). At the time, I was in seminary still and looked up 17 different commentaries on the parable and each commentator approached the text differently. Go figure…
The real problem with this phrase of St. Vincent is not the latter two clauses, but the initial clause. What defines the “Essentials of the Faith.” Or perhaps, to use more Biblical phraseology, what defines the “Faith once and for all time delivered to the saints.” What points of doctrine are we compelled to be united on lest the Christian faith be lost and we fall into outright heresy? This is a somewhat more hotly debated question.
Some theologians tend toward a more minimalistic approach — if we can all agree on the Apostles’ Creed, we can claim that we are Christians. Yet, Mormons would claim to hold to the Apostles’ Creed and even most mainstream denominations would identify the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints as a cult and not as a Christian denomination. Why is that? It is because the LDS church has redefined some of the terminology to suit their theological views.
Others have suggested that the four so-called Ecumenical Creeds together form this Essential view (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athenasian Creed, and the Christological Statement of Chalcedon). These four certainly draw us much closer to the answer and add some much-needed definitions to the terminology of the Apostles’ Creed. Yet, the Pope would affirm these four Creeds and most protestants would argue that the Pope is in serious error and many of us (particularly in the Reformed school of thought) would argue that the Pope is an antichrist.
So, where do we go next? While the next logical step is to appeal to the Confessions of the Church, we must be reminded that the purpose of a Confession is to clarify distinctions between Christian bodies, so confessions unapologetically cover things that may not fall into the realm of “Essentials.” So, that still leaves us asking the question, “Where is our starting point when it comes to Essentials?”
The answer has to fall back to looking at the Bible — the sixty-six books that comprise the Old and New Testaments. But, we need to go a little further than that. We ought to clarify that it is these books, treated as the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, consisting and treated as a unified whole, not a collection of disparate books gathered by the church. When the Scriptures become our starting point and our only rule for faith and practice, we now have a substantial basis upon which essentials can be distinguished.
The Bible is also the only place where we can know the Gospel. Gospel, of course, is a word that is used rather broadly — it refers to the four books that begin the New Testament and it also refers to the message of salvation we might would use in evangelism. In its most basic sense, though, the word means “Good News” and the Gospel (in that sense) is the whole of the Bible as the Bible contains the good news of God’s redemption of man throughout history. Beginning to end, it is the only place where we can discover the good news of the forgiveness of sins and a hope for eternal life. That is our Essential — everything else we hold flows out of this one book.
The Nations as an Inheritance
“He declares the power of His works to His people;
He gives to them the nations as an inheritance.”
(Psalm 111:6)
I had the joy of bringing the word this past weekend to Ministerios Betesda, a Hispanic congregation in south Florida. This was our second time together for a conference and I was invited to speak of the topic of finding delight through the Study of the Bible as an essential part of the Christian life. As always, the grace and hospitality of these saints was a great blessing (not to mention their cooking!) and I pray that the seeds planted during my time with them will bear good fruit.
It never ceases to amaze me how God brings people together and how radically similar we are once we get beyond superficial matters like the color of one’s skin or the cultural “personalities” that differ from region to region. At this stage of my life, this country-boy from north-eastern Maryland has been privileged to minister to homeless men on the streets of Jackson, Mississippi, to easter-European pastors in Ukraine and in Russia, to pastors in Kenya, and now to Hispanic Christians in south Florida; plus I have worked to mentor pastors in Rwanda, Uganda, Malawi, and India to name a few other places. My point is not to say, “look at me…” No, just the opposite. My point is to say, “Look at Jesus! And look at Christ’s Church!”
Now, all border and immigration politics aside, what I find wonderful is the nature of Christ’s church. It exists beyond national boundaries and it exists beyond language boundaries. The church may look a little different and sound a little different based on where you are, but Christ is being glorified as men and women, redeemed from the power of sin and death, come together for worship.
I remember the first time that God impressed this great truth upon me. I was in eastern Ukraine with a group of Russian-speaking Christians and we went to church. It was my first real trip out of the United States, so I was feeling pretty overwhelmed by the language barrier, but then, all of a sudden, I recognized the tune to the hymn these Christians were singing. Right there and then I was struck with the reality of the words of praise that these Christians were lifting up in a language not my own. America is not the salvation of the Church; Christ is — I truly understood that wonderful truth there and then.
The Bible talks a lot about this phrase “the inheritance of the nations” or “the nations as an inheritance.” Too often when we see these words, we think only in terms of land and territory and natural resources…yet this not of which the Bible is speaking. It is speaking of people who are being “shaken out” of the nations to fill the church. And, so, if you want to see God actively fulfilling this promise in Christ — spend some time doing cross-cultural ministry.
My concern, at least pastorally, is how often people don’t look outside of their context. In the church where I was raised, I heard about missionaries but I never met one — money was just sent to the denomination and they dispersed it as they saw fit, sending missionaries as they saw fit. The idea of anything cross-culture was seen as a novelty and not emphasized. Also, I have known churches to get so focused on their own challenges and problems that they begin to act as if they are the only thing that matters. Yet, the church is far bigger than one regional location.
In addition, I have found that the bad teachings and heresies that we see here in our American context are often the same bad teachings and heresies that plague the church elsewhere. The “prosperity” and new-age movements abound and attack the church not just here but all over. The errors that come along with the hyper-pentecostalism of people like Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer are also leading many astray in other cultural contexts. The goal of church leadership is to build the church up to maturity to ensure that it is not swayed to-and-fro by the winds of human cunning and false doctrine. One thing we have in America — that our brothers and sisters elsewhere do not have — is an abundance of resources — not just money, but good theological literature. If we would strengthen Christ’s church we must not limit our work to our own cultural context — but extend the work to the whole of the Christian church so that men and women of every tribe and language would know the greatness of our God as is taught in our Bibles.
Who is this Mediator — God and Man?
The simple answer that every child learns in church, in Sunday School, and in other children’s programs is that our only Mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ who was sent to us to redeem us from our sins by substituting himself in our place, paying the penalty for our sins and imputing to us his righteousness. And as adults we say, “Amen and Amen.” And all believers respond, whether child or adult, “Praise God! Hallelujah!”
There are many other religions floating around this old world, but every other religion that I am aware of, leaves you in the despondency of human works or fate. They may call it various things — merit, karma, kismet, etc…but it all boils down to one thing: despair. I can’t do enough good works to satisfy my own soul, let alone the demands of a perfect God. And then the idea of fate — I am bound to my miserable lot, so why bother growing and seeking maturity in faith or doing good works. In the end — grief and despair overwhelm. What a radical difference there is between Biblical Christianity and any other faith that the world has to offer!
The real question, for you who confess Christ is whether you really live like you believe Christ is your mediator and intercessor before God. Do you strive to live in a way that honors him? Do you seek to live obediently to his commands? If not, can it be said that you really believe all this you say about the person of Christ? In principle, the things we believe are seen in the way we live. Is Christ visible in the way you live your life? Is he visible in the way you worship? Is he glorified in you?
The Preacher's Study 