Culture
Category

By In Culture

The Centrality of Daily Worship

Photo courtesy pexels.com

There never seem to be enough hours in the day to get everything done that needs to be done. Most of us have a lot on our to-do list and our wish-to-do list. Those things are not unimportant, even if they may sometimes seem to be. Whether it is a mundane chore or a major project that will revolutionize the world, those daily, weekly, and yearly tasks are a means of Christian fruitfulness that brings glory to our Lord. But the primary work we are made for is the activity we may be most likely to neglect when other duties are pressing upon us. We were made to worship, whatever else we have been gifted and called to do in this world.

Worship is primary. It is the basic human function. Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is man’s all (Ecc. 12:13). Human beings are literally made to work and pray. As important as the rest of our ordinary labors are—and they are very important—everything flows from and returns to God’s altar. We pray that we may work, and we return from our work to give thanks for what has been done. Rightly understood, all the activities in our lives are an exercise of worship (Rom. 12:1). Our daily activities are not the same as the explicit and formal worship we offer in the hours of prayer: our private devotions, family worship, and the Church’s corporate assemblies. But God is praised, nonetheless. We are to approach all of our tasks with gratitude to God for his mercy and goodness to us and do whatever we do to the glory of his Name.

Nevertheless, when busyness overtakes us, we are most likely to neglect the worshipful aspect of our lives. There is no time for morning prayer and Scripture reading—we have too much to do! We cannot take time to meditate gratefully on God’s gift of our labor—we are too consumed by trying to get it done so that we can move on to something else! Work spills over into the Lord’s Day, we become cranky and resentful, and rather than glorifying God we dishonor him by neglecting that which is of first importance (Lk. 10:41-42) and by working with a selfish and ungrateful attitude.

The Lord’s Day begins the week on the right note, with the proper frame of mind. We work from grace, not for it. Unlike our Jewish fathers prior to the coming of Christ, our week begins with rest rather than culminating in it. The joy and peace of redemption accomplished and applied forms the foundation of our weekly labor. We labor not in messianic anticipation but with the joy of those who belong to the Regeneration. We know that Christ is on his throne, ruling us, defending us, interceding for us, and overcoming all of his and our enemies. We begin the week by worshiping around the throne of our glorious Lord, and as we are sent forth in the benediction and commission so that worship spills out into the world, driving away the darkness and filling creation with the knowledge of the glory of God.

Read more

By In Culture

A Shrove Tuesday Homily

Shrove Tuesday is a glorious excuse to feast like the Hebrews, swim in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory guilt-free, and do what hobbits were made to: have a second breakfast. Christians should be notoriously bold about eating, and they should be notoriously known for getting together to eat. As a matter of fact, eating together is the virtue that toppled empires. While the Egyptians ate at elaborate banquets, God sent locusts to consume and eat their banquets. Of course, God will not allow competing parties in his world. If they attempt to compete for Banquet Hosts, God will consume them.

So, how do we enter into God’s banquet? Where do I RSVP? The requirement for entrance to this banquet is not acute taste buds or a culinary degree; it is the badge of love. “Better a dinner of herbs with love, than a fatted calf with hatred and disobedience,” says the Lord.

In our evangelical attempts to outdo the ascetic movement, we often talk timidly about the extra slice of pizza we had, or we say even apologetically, “I sure ate a lot last night!” But in the Bible, apologies about eating can seem outright tasteless. We don’t have to dig too far in the Bible to see that the idea of “fatness” carefully considered is a good thing. For example, the word “anointing” means to “make fat.” The Hebrew word Dashen means to be fat, grow fat, and become fat.

In fact, Psalm 23, a favorite to many, uses that precise language. In Hebrew, it reads: “You fatten my head with oil and my cup overflows.” Shrove Tuesday is an additional opportunity to criticize our sensitivities, wash away the grammar of cultural pietism, and embrace the fatty bacon like a gift from God.

God is not stingy about butter, and under ordinary conditions, as Elisha asked for a double portion of the Spirit, children of the living God should ask for a double portion of pancakes.

And this leads me to my final point in this brief but fat-filled exhortation, and that is that we only abuse the gift of food when we forget that food is a blessing to a forgiven community. Unrepentant communities don’t know how to eat correctly, and as a result, their food is merely consumed and not celebrated.

On the other hand, the Church’s table is good and right and wholesome and beneficial because it is covered by the blood of God’s Lamb, Jesus Christ. Jesus was food for us, and now we eat the food of the table with the hearts of forgiven saints. Solomon says, “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” The mercy of confession is what makes food glorious and delicious.

Tomorrow, we are going full-steam into a 40-day culture of repentance. For many, this will mean fasting and meditating and focusing in greater detail on our lack of gratitude for the gifts of God. We have eaten without understanding, communed without confession, watched without discernment, entertained ourselves without the table, and found refuge in feeble fortresses made by human hands. We have rebuked our children for their lack of love while we have been unloving to our spouses and our own children.

We have 40 days to flesh this out, but tonight, eat well, laugh goodly, and love your neighbor like God loved the fat of the lambs in Israel’s sacrifices. Don’t be shy! Jesus gave his life for the abundant table we share tonight!

Let us pray:

O, Lord, how beautiful these last days have been! Prepare us now on this last day of Epiphany for the gifts of your table. When we forget you, we forget life itself; therefore, give us the fat of Israel’s sacrifices, yay more, give us the fulfillment of Israel’s sacrifices, Jesus himself. For the riches of Solomon’s house and the banquets of Pensacola do not come close to the glory of the marriage Supper of the Lamb. As we stand at the end of Epiphany and the entrance gate to the Lenten Season, may our hearts long for the kneeling bench of forgiveness, the peaceful ethos of a clean conscience, and the benediction of a loving God. Cleanse our hearts that we may eat as unto the Lord and may live as unto the Lord, for we pray unto the Lord of forgiveness who declares our hands clean to eat and drink, amen!

Read more

By In Culture

Does Politics Have any Place on the Pulpit? How to Speak to Kings 101


One of the issues that has presented itself to the Christian Church, especially in the last 100 years, is the problem of politics and the pulpit. It was an issue in Bonhoeffer’s day as the Church, especially Christian pastors, went quiet on major cultural-political issues out of fear of being deemed “too political.” This is a problem in the American Church just as it was in the German Church in the pre World War II era. Eric Metaxas points out in his book Letter to an American Church. If it is a problem there, it is so much moreso a problem in the Canadian Church. I heard many such comments whispered from the pews of Reformed Churches in the years heading up to the COVID tyranny of 2020-?. I’ve heard it with increased frequency in the last couple of years. This has lead me to reflect deeply on Scripture and pray about what God demands of the preacher in a time like this. And so I’ll begin by posing a question: does politics have any place in the pulpit?

I submit that this debate is not about whether politics are in the pulpit, but how we preach on politics from the pulpit. Everyone engages in politics of some form or another (whether secular, totalitarian, pagan, or Biblical). It is another question if it is guided by a proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

Be Ye Not Political:

I use the language here that Eric Metaxas uses for the title of the 11th chapter of his Letter to the American Church. This has become an additional commandment in much of the Canadian Church as we silence our pastors and/or as pastors self-censor. Of course, there is something here in this command that we should be warned against. The answer to the problems of our society is not found in the politics and policies of men. The answer is found in the Scriptures. The answer to sin comes from God in His revelation of Jesus Christ. As a Christian Church, we also have to take care not to align ourselves with a political party, although we must “abhor what is evil and love what is good” (Rom. 12:9), wherever it might be found, including in political parties and state leaders. We must also avoid political alliances with evil in order to accomplish a single isolated good. But at the end of the day, there is no Biblical command that says “be ye not political.” It is more a matter as to how to be political.

Is the gospel at the front end? Is the Word of God central? Is worship central? Is the city of God the city that transforms the cities of men? How does it transform the cities of men? These are all important questions.

But in order to understand more what is going in here, we must first acquaint ourselves with secularism.

The Lie of Secularism:

Secularism does not simply refer to the old idea of the separation of church and state which is a good ideal, when understood rightly. Secularism refers to the separation of religion and state, that the state can govern by morally neutral principles, by a social contract, maybe incorporating some of the natural law.

But the problem with secularism is that it is an impossibility. Man is inherently religious. He will either worship the state or he will worship science or he will worship something or someone else. Man needs a higher authority. For that reason, secularism as an ideal has failed at its inception. It failed the minute someone thought it up.

Nevertheless, we continue to promote the lie as a society. That way the Christian faith is kept out of politics, that is, politics being the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area.

The Church has become deeply secularized, separating faith and business, faith and politics, faith and family. But the resounding motto that our people should hear both in the pew and in all of life is this: if Jesus is not Lord over all, then He is not Lord at all. This is the truth that is taught throughout the Scriptures, but especially as we find it in Colossians 1:18–20: “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Here is the problem. When God’s Laws are mocked, especially the preachers and teachers in the Church cannot be silent. It is an impossibility. It is an impossibility because the initial place that His authority is made manifest is in the Church. The pastors have been given the holy and sacred duty to declare the crown rights of King Jesus.

Christians and Kings:

We see themes of believers standing before and speaking to kings throughout the Scriptures. We hear the true God of the Bible described this way in Deuteronomy 10:17: “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.” Solomon speaks to his son in Proverbs 22:29: “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men.” And again in Ecclesiastes 8:3 “Be not hasty to go from his presence. Do not take your stand in an evil cause, for he does whatever he pleases.” King David writes in Psalm 119:46–47 “I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame, for I find my delight in your commandments, which I love.” Daniel stands before Nebuchadnezzar and Beltashazar to speak the Word of God. John the Baptist rebukes Herod for taking his brothers wife (as a side note: I remember reading of one commentator who claimed that John the Baptist was a young minister who had a promising career that was cut short by political preaching). Paul stands before various kings until he finally brings the gospel to Caesar after Christ commissioned him in Acts 9:15–16: “But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.’” We hear Jesus described by John as “the ruler of kings on earth” in Revelation 1:5 and by Paul to Timothy as “the King of kings and Lord of Lords” in I Timothy 6:15. Jesus Himself says in Matthew 28:18 that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” and that we are to teach the nations all things that He has commanded after going out and baptizing and discipling them. We find this promise in Revelation 21:24: “By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it…” (Remember the principle of “now and not yet” for that passage from Revelation.)

Does the Call to Repentance include Kings?

Jesus writes in Luke 24:46–48 “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.

I’ll cut right to the point. Yes, repentance for the forgiveness of sins must also be declared to our civil authorities, regardless of how “political” that might be deemed. This is our basic duty and task as a Church, as a Christian people. Just as Paul was a witness of Christ to Jews, to Gentiles and the children of Israel, so we are witnesses to the reality of Christ’s suffering, His resurrection, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His Name to all nations – that includes Canada.

We see it in the annals of Christian history, as Ambrose called King Theodosius to repentance, Patrick brought the gospel to the kings and princes of Ireland, John Knox called out the sins of the queen of Scotland, Abraham Kuyper tried to bring Biblical principles to bear as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands for a time.

The prophet has a duty to cavil against the evils and pride of all men and call them to bow the knee to Jesus Christ and to find their life in Him. And he has a duty to do it in a particular way. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:1–3: “Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.

Throughout Christian history, Christian kings have sought to bring the laws of Christ to bear, such as Constantine, Charlamagne, King Alfred, William the Silent, and other Christian kings and leaders of the post-Reformation era.

In order to call for repentance, men need to repent of something, they need to turn away from something and turn to something. The primary thing is a recognition among the kings and leaders of the earth that Jesus is Lord over all, and that in order to rule rightly, they must bow the knee to Him. If Jesus is Lord of all, then His principles for justice and law that are found throughout the Scriptures, are the best principles to rule by. Anything that stands in opposition to those principles is fundamentally rebellion against Him, and in His goodness, He died for rebels, to deliver them from their rebellion. We find the promise inPsalm 68:18: “You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.” We find the fulfillment in Ephesians 4:8 where Paul applies this to Christ: “Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’

Conclusion:

The clear conclusion of what we find in the Scriptures is that the implication of the gospel message that Jesus is our final prophet, priest and king is that there are massive political ramifications to the call to repentance and faith in Him. And yet, the kingdom of Christ advances differently than the kingdoms of this world. The kingdom of Christ advances through the bold preaching of the gospel message, the call to bow the knee and yield allegiance to Jesus as King, the king who came to serve and give His life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45). It advances as bold martyrs give up their lives rather than betray or deny their Lord and Master Jesus Christ. As the blood of the martyrs has watered the dry and stony grounds of godless and unbelieving nations, the church has sprung up out of it. This is because we have a God who knows the way out of the grave. It advances as kings and presidents and prime ministers get down on their knees and say to Jesus Christ: “My heart I offer to you Lord, promptly and sincerely.”

So yes, politics do have a place on the pulpit. Jesus speaks to the governance of a specific region, especially when that government begins to mock His laws and Word and despise or even persecute His holy Church. Secular politics are a lie. And no pastor should either assume a lie or preach a lie. The Bible and the truths therein should set the agenda. The Lordship of Christ over all things is central. All men, all parties, must bow before His throne.

This means that those bearing the Word must first and foremost be in submission to it, in their warnings, encouragements, exhortations and praise.


Note: The header photo is an illustration by the Dutch painter Peter Paul Rubens of St. Ambrose barring King Theodosius from the sanctuary after the Massacre of Thessalonika. He would not allow the king to enter until he repented of this massacre.

Note: This is part of a series of items relating to ecclesiology that I am posting on Kuyperian Commentary. You can find other work on my Substack account. My latest essay on Kuyperian is important background to this one.

Read more

By In Church, Culture, Wisdom

Freedom of Speech?

As Americans, we proudly flaunt our right to free speech. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and anytime we are challenged on just about anything we say, we will appeal to this God-given right. Although freedom of speech primarily focuses on the right to political speech, keeping the powers that be in check, and ensuring a healthy Republic, the First Amendment has been used to protect the vilest expressions in our country. Our birthright is to be able to say what we want, when we want, and to whomever we want. Furthermore, there should be no repercussions.

However, with freedom comes responsibility. You are free to drive a car. You are not free to drive a car into a crowd to maim or kill anyone. You are free to own a firearm (currently). You are not free to use it indiscriminately on others. You are free to speak. You are not free to scream “fire!” in a crowded venue when there is no fire because it can cause people to injure themselves or others. Your freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and, therefore, consequences.

(more…)

Read more

By In Culture

When Liturgy Becomes Hospitality

We need to begin moving our liturgical efforts into the realm of hospitality. What I mean by this may appear obvious, but it isn’t very easy on a large scale. Some congregations may want to move into that arena but are paralyzed by self-inflicted wounds. They are more interested in showing their distinctiveness than proving their distinctives through tangible actions.

We use a saying in our inquirer’s class that goes something like this: “We need to bathe our weirdness with a deep sense of commonness.” Internally and behind the scenes, we don’t view ourselves as weird, but we are quite aware that the perception exists in a thoroughly de-liturgized culture.

This came across in an observation from a mother who raised her daughter in a Reformed context and saw her daughter go into a different tradition altogether. Now, mind you, the daughter was not antagonistic towards Reformed Theology, but she found the practices of this broadly evangelical environment more friendly and inviting. For the record, I am the last person to give much credence to an impressionable young adult. Still, I do want to take the opportunity to offer some general thoughts on the art of commonness and why black coffee Calvinists like myself think our churches need more than mere liturgism.

The first observation is that our Reformational theology/liturgy should be inviting. However worship is communicated–paraments or stripped tables–it must carry on the gravitas of joy from beginning to end. We live in a culture that craves the normalcy of joy. If we invite younger generations to taste and see Geneva’s God, we must also ensure that we don’t portray Geneva as some ogre attempting to tyrannize conscience. Geneva needs to show up with smiles and greetings, not five points of inquiry.

The second note is that the sweetness of worship ought to give folks a sense of the holy. We need liturgical worship that brings people to see the sovereignty of God resting in every element of worship in every line and every response.

Once, a visitor told one of our congregants that even though the liturgy was foreign to her, it was incredibly joyful. But even if the impression is oppositional–and it has happened–we should still communicate a culture where the holy is a common ritual of the people. You cannot control reactions, but you can manage interactions. You can control a sweet disposition towards a visitor. You can sit next to them when they walk in alone and guide them through the order of worship.

Third, and finally, if the liturgy is a living liturgy–contrary to modernistic ritualization experiences in mainline churches with alternating “Mother God” lines–then that liturgy must breathe life into the home. It needs to be perpetuated with food and drink for those strangers who visit. If they are not invited to see your lived-out liturgy, it is unlikely they will find pleasure in your acted-out liturgy on Sunday mornings. It will continue to be strange and foreign rather than warm and inviting.

Our liturgical efforts must move into hospitable efforts. In fact, liturgy necessarily moves into homes. Ultimately, we may still appear strange, and our songs may still give a Victorian vibe, but at the very least, we will have given visitors a sense of the holy and an invitation to joy.

Our Reformed churches should contemplate that model in our day.

Read more

By In Culture

The Pulpit and the Pure Preaching of the Holy Gospel

The Pulpit and the Pure Preaching of the Holy Gospel

We find various exhortations to faithfully continue in the preaching of the Word throughout the Scriptures. Paul commands Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1–2: “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” This is related to the command of Christ Himself in Mark 16:15–16: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Paul describes his and his colleagues work of preaching in 1 Corinthians 1:22–23 “For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles…” The Apostle Peter writes to the church in Asia Minor in 1 Peter 1:23–25 “… since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for ‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

So we see three basic principles for preaching in the Scriptures: (1) Preach the Word; (2) Preach the gospel; (3) Preach Christ.

The necessity of preaching is a bit easier to establish in North American Christianity than the necessity of the sacraments. Especially among Protestants that have kept the tradition of “the sermon.” Even when it is done poorly in megachurches and the pastor doesn’t really have a “sermon” there is still some sort of “talk”. What I do want to establish within Protestantism again is the authority of the preaching of the holy gospel.

The challenge then is more to establish the necessity of pure preaching. Another challenge is dealing with movements that focus on one command over the other. One group might focus on “preaching the Word.” Another might focus on “preaching the gospel.” Another might focus on “preaching Christ.” Well, why can’t we do all three? That is part of the problem of doing good theology in 2021. Rather than wrestling with the commands of Scripture within the context of the commands of Scripture, we tend to pit the various commands of Christ against one another. As a result, the church struggles to grow in maturity.

Establishing some basics:

There are a lot of discussions about how to preach the Bible to the church. I’ll introduce you to two terms here for now. Lectio continua is when a pastor takes a book of the Bible and goes through it verse by verse or section by section and tries to cover it all. Topical is when a pastor goes through Scripture by taking different texts, or will preach a series on marriage for example, and then finds all the references to marriage in Scripture. Both can be done well or poorly. I do prefer “lectio continua” for the reason that it forces you to deal with tough passages and it allows the text to set the agenda.

In II Timothy 3:10-17, Paul sets out two basic aspects to the function of the Scriptures. (1) The Scriptures led Timothy and should lead others to find salvation in Christ (II Tim. 3:15). (2) The Scriptures teach you how to live in that salvation, they are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (II Tim. 3:16).

So here’s how it works. When you preach the Word, the Holy Scriptures, Jesus says that they will point to Him (Jn. 5:39). He is the gospel or at least the gospel is made known in Him (Mark. 1:1). So if you are preaching the Word rightly, then you are preaching of Christ and the gospel (Lk. 24:27). To quote Q&A 19 of the Heidelberg Catechism: the gospel was already revealed in Paradise. These commands are not in opposition. They come together in a holy unity of purpose.

The gospel was already revealed in Paradise

Building on the Basics:

Every text in Scripture has various teachings that arise from the text and can be taught on within the boundaries of the rule of Scripture. The rule of Scripture is simply – Scripture interprets Scripture, the simpler texts interpret the hard texts. After all our understanding that we are governed by Scripture alone does not mean that we are governed by one passage taken out of context at the expense of all of Scripture. The various Reformed traditions explain this principle of the rule of Scripture in various ways.

You will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6):

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6

I really appreciated a line that I saw recently in the Anglican 39 articles:

“However, it is not lawful for the church to order anything contrary to God’s written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to Holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation.”

39 Articles, Article 6

There are various teaching that can be deduced and developed from within the pages of holy Scripture. One passage of Scripture should never be expounded in a way that it is in contradiction with another passage of Scripture. Thus we find various teachings across the Bible. The sovereignty of God. The sinfulness of man. The need for a Savior. Covenant. Kingdom. Church. Sacraments. Authority. Pastors should preach on every one of these teachings that arise from the text and others and still preach Christ. It matters how Christ is preached, that we do not preach a figment of our own imagination, but it must be done nevertheless.

This brings me to reflections on typology. Typology clearly arises from a a proper use of the grammatical-historical method. The grammatical-historical method is simply an analysis of the grammar and the context of the text. It seeks reads the text for what it is: understanding authorial intent. I believe that one cannot use this method and not arrive at various typological readings of Scripture. In the modern day we incline towards a literalistic hermeneutic (which is different from a proper use of the grammatical-historical method) which often limits the one who is opening the Scripture from making the gospel and Jesus Christ clear from all of Scripture.

That being said, I should warn that if typology is done wrong, it can also make the Scriptures confusing. Typology should have rules and controls surrounding it so that the preacher can properly demonstrate to the listener how salvation is found in Christ and how to live the Christian life. One of those rules is this – if your typologizing leads you to contradict a clear teaching of Scripture, or if it leads you to some teaching that is far afield of historic Christian doctrine, you are doing it wrong. Go back and do your homework again.

What is typology? Before I move to typology within the Christian traditions, I will deduce it directly from Scripture. For example, in I Corinthians 10:1-6, the Apostle Paul wades into the deep waters of typology. He does it elsewhere, but particularly here.

In the first five vss of this passage Paul waxes eloquent, drawing lines between the Red Sea and baptism, between Moses and Christ, between the manna in the wilderness and the water from the rock and the spiritual food and drink in the New Testament. All those who drank from the Rock, drank of Christ. He is typologizing here as he does in vs. 6. In vs. 6, he continues with this sentence: “Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.” The word for “example” is “τύπος” which has a semantic range of “a figure, type, an example, a pattern.”

It is used elsewhere in the New Testament, about 18x, in various contexts. But for our intents and purposes there is an important one in Romans 5:14: “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” There, Paul uses the same word “τύπος” or “type”.

The ancient theologians in the early church had four ways of approaching Scripture – literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical. The ‘literal sense” is what many refer to when the speak about the grammatical historical method, even when the use of this method reveals the use of many types. The literal sense especially focuses on historical events. The ‘allegorical sense’ in my understanding is very closely associated with the discerning of ‘types’ within Scripture. Some will even speak of a ‘typological sense’ as opposed to the ‘allegorical sense.’ The ‘tropological sense’ simply refers to the ‘moral sense’ of a passage. Combined with the ‘literal sense’ this is another focus of the modern use of the grammatical historical method. Finally, the ‘anagogical sense’ deals with future events, prophecies, the hope of the Christian in the resurrection of the dead. All of these can be found within Scripture, some passages may have multiple senses.

This is not abandoned in the Reformation in that you will find a lot of “typologizing” among the Reformers along with them dealing with the literal sense. What the Reformers did, and rightfully so, was to back away from the fanciful and speculative interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church of that time, and to focus more on the clarity of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, as we see in Presbyterian and Anglican confessions, they still continued to deduce from Scripture as well as to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

What is the Gospel?

In recent years, one of the fruits of modern day evangelicalism, is debates over what the gospel is. While certain movements in evangelicalism have given us the blessing of an increased emphasis on expository preaching, at times, the waters have been muddied by a reductionistic understanding of the gospel.

Some people will talk about a tighter definition of the gospel and a broader definition of the gospel. Is the gospel justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ? Is it penal substitutionary atonement? Is it the simple message of repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ? What is it? Definitely, the denial of each of these, is a denial of the gospel.

But what is the gospel?

Well, as indicated above, Mark 1:1 indicates that the gospel is the good news, and that it is “of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” In Mark 15:15, Jesus goes around preaching this message: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

It is pretty clear from Mark 1 that in order to believe the good news, then we must know who Jesus Christ is. According to Jesus in John 5:39, when his people search the Scriptures trying to find eternal life, the whole point of everything is for you and me to find Jesus Christ, because all the Scriptures speak of Him.

Well, the events of the gospels teach us something about who Jesus is. His incarnation teaches us that Jesus is both man and God. His death on the cross teaches us that He died for our sins. His resurrection teaches us that He is victorious over the grave. His ascension into heaven teaches us that He is king. It teaches us a lot more than that as you will find in the various teachings of the Apostles and in the Gospels, but these basic truths are good news. A denial of any of the historical events of His life is a denial of the gospel (as you will find in the Athanasian Creed and implied in the Apostle’s Creed).

Adam was a type of Christ in the sense that he revealed the need for Christ. God’s plan for redemption through Christ, the second Adam, was determined because of the fall of the first Adam in the Garden of Eden. Similarly we see many more pictures point to Christ. Every prophet, priest and king (judge) in the Old Testament pointed to the need for Christ.

I will draw the lines in the Scriptures for those who question this. (1) We learn that Jesus Christ is a prophet. God promised this too Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—” This passage is referred to by the Apostles to speak of Jesus in both Acts 3:22 and 7:37. (2) We learn that Jesus Christ is a King. God promised David in 2 Samuel 7:16: “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” We see the fulfillment of this promise in Luke 1:32–33 when the angel Gabriel speaks to Mary: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Notice how the throne is given to Jesus in part on the basis of His divinity. (3) We learn that Jesus Christ is a priest. Finally, the Book of Hebrews is chock full of fulfillment, where it speaks of Christ our final High Priest. For example, you will find this in Hebrews 9:11–12: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” The Scriptures are clear: Christ is our final prophet, king and priest.

It is common in the modern day to reduce the message of the gospel to the penal substitutionary atonement or justification by faith. These are definitely key components of the gospel and crucial to the gospel message. To deny such is to deny the gospel. It is a denial of the gospel because it on wants to accept a part of Christ – removing the reality of Christ in His High priestly office from the gospel. But what we focus on can sometimes limit the scope of the gospel. While we don’t want to reject the priestly office of Christ, we also don’t want to reject His prophetic office or kingly office. If want to promote all of Christ then we will promote what the Scriptures promote: that Christ is our final Prophet, Priest, and King.

It is clear from Paul’s words to the young Christians in Corinth that one of the most fundamental expressions of the Christian faith is that Jesus is Lord (I Cor. 12:2, 16:22, Rom. 10:9). The declaration of the Kingship of Christ over the whole world throughout the Book of Acts is what leads to conflict between the kingdoms of men and the kingdom of Christ, even if at times the opponents of the gospel somewhat misunderstand how the gospel takes shape and moves through this world. When the men of Thessalonika panic at the Apostles speaking of another King, they were not wrong. And His rule is very good news. His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt. 11:30).

On the basis of what I have laid out from Scripture, I also want to remind the modern church that Jesus is indeed King, and that is very good news. I appreciate the way that the Heidelberg Catechism frames this question where it speaks of Christ also as king in Q&A 31: “and our eternal king who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and who guards us and keeps us in the deliverance he has won for us.” It is an amazing message of good news for rebel sinners to hear that the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross and His current reign in heaven means that not only is death defeated, but so also sin no longer has power. We find this in 1 Corinthians 15:56–57: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus is good news. It is good news that the Son of God took on human flesh. It is good news that He lived and suffered and died and rose again and ascended into heaven and is currently reigning over all things and will come again to judge the living and the dead. It is good news that as our final priest He makes atonement and justifies us by faith in Him, that as our final prophet He accurately teaches us the whole counsel of God and calls all men to faith in Him, that as our final king, He rules us with His Word and Spirit, and protects us in the deliverance He has won. It is good news that our sins are forgiven. It is good news that because of the atonement, because of justification, that sin longer has dominion, that even though we fight, yet we can begin to see the fruit of good works in our hearts, minds, and lives. The Kingship of Christ is very good news.

The Entire Counsel of God:

In the context of what I have written above, it is important that in reflecting upon the teaching of the Apostles in the New Testament that we reflect on the words of the Apostle Paul to the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20:26–27: “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” Here Paul repeats what he said also in Acts 20:20: “…how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house,” What Paul says here should be discerned in the context of the words of the Lord to His prophet in Jeremiah 26:2 “Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD all the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.” This is how one seeks to rightly divide the word of truth as we find Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:14–15 “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

The Scriptures are full of types, of histories and genealogies and poetry and prophecy. It is full of warnings and rebukes and comfort and consolation and lament and joy and celebration and hope. The Lord wants all of that to be given to His people through the preaching of the Word, through the preaching of the holy gospel. But our Lord also wants that to be done rightly. He doesn’t want pastors to be quarreling over words. He wants His entire counsel to be communicated clearly so that the nations might be taught to observe all things that He has commanded us, not just some of the things that He has commanded us (Matthew 28:20).

Conclusion:

The preaching of the Word of God is central to how the church is formed and how it grows in maturity or sanctification (holiness). It was in the Theses of Berne in 1528, that some of the initial reformers wrote these words in the very first thesis: “The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.” This statement derives its truth, not because it was written by the Reformers, but because the Scriptures declare its truth. The Church, as we find in the words of the Apostle Peter in I Peter 1, experiences rebirth through the living Word of God.

“The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.”

Thesis #I of Berne

It is a great and awesome task to bring that Word of God to God’s people. It is attributed to John Knox that he once said: “I have never once feared the devil, but I tremble every time I enter the pulpit.” It is fitting to say then that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of the true preaching of the gospel.

It is absolutely necessary then that the true gospel be preached, that the Word of God be preached, that Christ be preached all the way from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. God wants His word to be rightly taught and for it to be taught in its entirety: from the prophetic books to the wisdom literature to the gospels. All of it speaks of Christ. So let’s get to work and call out to God that He would bless our every effort to hallow His Name and increase His kingdom, that all our sermons and teaching would be full of the power of His Holy Spirit. “To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” (Isaiah 8:20)

Photo by Mitchell Leach on Unsplash

Note. This is part of a series of ongoing posts on ecclesiology. You can find the first two here and here. All these posts are up with other content on Nathan Zekveld’s Substack website.

Read more

By In Culture

Alistair Begg and Gay Weddings

I want to acknowledge that Alistair Begg’s ministry has been an illuminating journey into exegetical faithfulness. Five decades of opening your Bible and examining it verse-by-verse is the ol’ fashioned evangelical method, which has birthed much fruitfulness in this country and produced remarkable teachers. It worked for Martin Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, and many who followed in their train.

While I have not followed Begg’s ministry in over a decade, I know his fervor and sense of the holy from the testimony of many respected leaders in the Reformed world. So, it’s with enormous sadness that I have watched a man who should be ending his pastoral career at the height of ethical orthodoxy in his preaching and teaching utter unconscionable rubbish.

For those tuning in, here is the lengthy section from his interview with Bob Lepine:

BEGG: And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.

And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”

“Yes.”

“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”

“Yes.”

I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”

“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.

I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”

—–

I have waited patiently to give honor to whom honor is due, but nothing has clarified his position. I often give these elderly statesmen honor (I Tim. 5:1). I want to believe Begg has not kept up with the times or failed to see the negative world and its ramifications. Or perhaps Begg stays away from these political discourses, and the moment he spoke into it, he butchered the pastoral applications. I am hoping for an ethical epiphany.

(more…)

Read more

By In Culture

The Means of Grace

Christ is the grace of God come into this world, God made Man, given to us, offered for us, reigning over us. Reformed Christians are accustomed to emphasizing the “means of grace,” especially “the word, the sacraments, and prayer.” These are not the only means by which God imparts grace to us and strengthens us. He also does so by Christian fellowship, communion with the Spirit in meditation and solitude, by acts of service, through fighting battles against the world, the Devil, and our own flesh in sanctification. But all of these channels of grace are instruments whereby Christ is communicated to us. It is Christ proclaimed, Christ praised, Christ prayed, Christ obeyed, and Christ enjoyed that strengthens us in the life we have with God, by the Spirit, in Christ.

The means of grace are not pouring a mystical substance into us; they are communicating Christ to us. He comes to us in gospel proclamation and in the forms of water, bread, and wine. We meet him in the prayers and songs of the Church. We see him in the faces and lives of our brothers and sisters who are members of his Body on this earth. We feel his strength as we grow weak in resisting temptation, and even when we do not feel his strong arms, we know by faith that he is there to encourage and support us.

When we talk about the means of grace, we are talking about the ways in which the Holy Spirit brings Christ to us and applies the benefits of his kingly, priestly, and prophetic work. Grace is the milkshake, and the means of grace is the straw by which that sweet goodness gets into our mouth. But grace is not a substance like a milkshake; it is a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. We are accounted righteous in him. We are becoming righteous through him. We will be fully vindicated in righteousness because of him. “He must increase, and I must decrease.” That is what the means of grace are accomplishing in our lives. They are causing there to be more of Jesus in my life and less of Joel.

There is a mystery to the means of grace that we ought to embrace and celebrate. Exactly how does preaching awaken a sinner dead in trespasses and bring him to new life by the Spirit in Jesus Christ? How does baptism cleanse the penitent believer and seal his regeneration received by sovereign grace alone? How does the Eucharist strengthen our faith and nourish our souls in grace, especially when it is gluten-free communion bread? How can a service of covenant renewal worship make any real difference at all in my relationship with God?

We are not able to explain these things, and if we think we can, it just proves how ignorant we are. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (1Cor. 8:1). Some Christians think of growth in grace strictly in intellectual and rationalistic terms. The “means of grace” sounds too Catholic to their ears, too superstitious, and so they simply approach the Christian life as a matter of learning and applying information. Others acknowledge the category of the means of grace, but they are inconsistent in how they think about it. “The word, the sacraments, and prayer,” yes, but mainly the word, because we know that the Supper is expendable but the Sermon never is. We may inadvertently elevate the preacher and his wisdom above the ministry of our High Priest and his memorial of grace. The point is not to pit the Table against the Pulpit or debate the relative potency of the Supper versus the Sermon. The point is that both the Sermon and the Supper are a ministry of Christ. He is proclaimed both in the preaching and in the elements. He is eaten by faith with both our ears and also our mouths.

The means of grace are the ways in which Christ comes to us, enters into us, continues to fill us, and finally saves us. The word and water, bread and wine, fellowship and feasting, praises and prayers, celebration and suffering, all become the Spirit’s instruments for proclaiming, applying, and exalting Christ in our hearts. Christ in you is the “hope of glory” (Col. 1:27), and the means of grace are how the Spirit brings our Savior to fill us with hope and, finally, with his glory.

Read more

By In Culture, Podcast

KC Commentary Podcast – Episode 122: Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism

Read more

By In Culture

Liturgical Standards and Living Faith: the Case of the Evangelical and Reformed Church

Last month The North American Anglican, an online journal, published an article by Peter D. Robinson, titled, Our German Cousins: Liturgy in the Evangelical and Reformed Church. If you’ve never heard of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, that’s because it no longer exists. Its life as a denomination was exceedingly brief, lasting from 1934 to 1957—just short of 25 years. That’s not a very long time considering that some denominations have existed for centuries. The Anglican communion itself may be a 19th-century invention, but the Church of England has been around for nearly 500 years, with some arguing that it’s much older, going back to Augustine of Canterbury, the 6th-century Apostle to the English.

So what was this Evangelical and Reformed Church? It was created by the merger of two predecessor bodies, the (German) Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) and the (German) Evangelical Synod of North America. The German Reformed were the descendants of Reformed Christians who had immigrated from German-speaking Europe, especially Switzerland and the Palatinate, the latter of which was once ruled by Elector Frederick III “the Pious” (1515-1576), who commissioned the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. The German Reformed began in 1725 and were initially under the care of Classis Amsterdam of the Dutch Reformed Church until 1793. During the late 19th century, efforts to unite with the (Dutch) Reformed Church in America were unsuccessful.

In the middle of that century, a movement was launched within the RCUS at its seminary in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, by John Williamson Nevin (1803-1886), who was later joined from Berlin by the renowned Swiss-born church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893). Some scholars have compared the Mercersburg Movement to the Oxford Movement within the Church of England in that it represented an effort to recover the catholic roots of the Reformed Church against the popular revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, which was affecting—negatively in Nevin’s estimation—many Protestant denominations, especially as their members moved west along the advancing frontier. The Mercersburg Movement led to liturgical renewal in the RCUS, although it remained controversial, even into the 20th century, with many members believing that it imported a pronounced Hegelian emphasis on historical progress, blunting its confessional integrity and making it too willing to unite with other denominations lacking its own Reformed identity. This, of course, is exactly what happened.

The German Evangelical Synod was brought to the United States largely by immigrants from the Prussian territories following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1817 King Friedrich Wilhelm III (1770-1840) of Prussia engineered a union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in his realms, and the result was a nonconfessional amalgamation that incorporated elements of both traditions while mandating neither. Immigrants from these lands established the German Evangelical Synod of North America, which dropped German from its name in 1927. The denomination’s most famous members were undoubtedly Reinhold (1892-1971) and Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962), both academic theologians who strongly influenced the mid-century mainline Protestant consensus in the US, and, in Reinhold’s case, even American foreign policy.

In 1934 the two denominations united, creating the Evangelical and Reformed Church, while the Eureka Classis in the Dakotas remained outside and retained the RCUS label. Thirteen years later, as recounted in Robinson’s article linked above, the combined denomination published The Book of Worship. In many respects, this collection is similar to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), containing orders for “Morning Worship, an Alternative Order of Worship, an Evening Service, The Preparatory Service, The Order of Holy Communion, and the Alternative Order of Holy Communion.” This material reflects both its Lutheran and Reformed heritage. Like the BCP it even prescribes a lectionary following the church calendar with epistle and gospel readings for each Sunday. Notably absent is a complete Psalter, although there is a list of “Proper Psalms for Seasons and Days.” Perusing this collection makes us appreciate the effort that went into it, with its evident concern to maintain continuity with the larger catholic liturgical tradition of the western church. One imagines that the brothers Niebuhr enjoyed meaningful worship Sunday after Sunday. Perhaps it would take a more in depth exploration of The Book of Worship to see whether there is a hint of what was to come, but from my own admittedly cursory examination, it looks pretty solid.

So what happened after this collection was adopted? The E&R Church lasted only another decade, and then it merged with the Congregational and Christian Churches to form the United Church of Christ (UCC), easily the most liberal Protestant denomination in the US. Bringing together the remnants of the German Reformed, German Evangelicals, descendants of the New England Puritans, and heirs of the 19th-century Restorationist movement, the UCC has steadily declined in both membership and influence. A solid liturgical document appears to have done little to prevent the combined denomination from losing its confessional integrity.

As a political scientist, I cannot resist making a comparison with nations and their constitutions. Reading a country’s constitutional document may or may not tell us how its political system works in the real world. The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation reads very well indeed, claiming as it does to set up a democratic political system similar in many respects to that of Fifth-Republic France, with a president, a bicameral parliament, a government led by a prime minister, and a court system, along with a federal division of powers. However, a reasonably well-drafted document has not prevented a return to authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin. Why not? Largely because the architects of a constitution cannot induce in the people themselves a love and respect for the rule of law where it is absent. After centuries of failed attempts to adopt a comprehensive legal code under the tsars, followed by 70 years of arbitrary governance by the Communist Party, the rule of law has a shallow basis in the Russian political culture, despite the existence of dissidents seeking to nurture it. But no written statute can legislate respect for the rule of law.

Americans lionize their nation’s 18th-century founders, whom many believe to have created a remarkably balanced and virtually fail-safe constitution. But even the architects of the Constitution recognized that it could not work if the people would not respect it. As John Adams famously put it,

we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Providentially, Americans had had a century and a half of experience with representative government in their colonial assemblies, and they could readily adapt these traditions to a wider scale. In other words, despite the motto on the dollar bill, the founders were by no means creating a novus ordo seclorum, or a “new order of the ages.” They were establishing political institutions modelled on existing ones at the state level. That the American political system has been so successful for nearly two and a half centuries is testimony to an underlying respect for the rule of law inherited from English and colonial usage. If Americans lose their allegiance to the rule of law—if they begin to question, not just the wisdom of particular political leaders, but the institutions themselves—if they subordinate their respect for the Constitution to their partisan allegiances or to their loyalty to a demagogic leader promising what they want to hear, then a system once admired for its durability, will inevitably falter.

Returning to the life of the gathered church community, a denomination may boast a solid set of confessional standards and a liturgy embodying the historic faith and placing on the lips of worshippers the Psalms, hymns, and prayers of their forebears. Yet where works righteousness has replaced the unmerited grace of God—where faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ has given way to the regnant ideological visions of the day—the creeds, confessions, and liturgies become dead letters, testimonies to an earlier faithful generation whose descendants have, as it were, moved on to other things.

None of this should be taken as an argument for casting aside the creeds, confessions, and liturgies of our forebears in the faith. Quite the contrary. If ordinary Christians are giving lip service to a faith that no longer lives in their hearts, the retention of such standards may not keep them in the fold. Nevertheless, they are a necessary precondition for renewed catechetical efforts to impress upon children and youth the need to set their hopes, not in what the world has to offer, but in Jesus Christ himself. In so far as our confessional and liturgical documents testify to this hope, we should open ourselves to being taught by them and commit ourselves to living accordingly.

Read more