Nathan Zekveld, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On February 1, 2025 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture 1

My Protest

One might describe me as a Protestant. The root of this word is that Protestants would protest the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s. To use a more positive term, I am Reformed. I stand especially with all the confessionally Reformed streams of Protestantism – Anglican, Presbyterian, continental Reformed, Lutheran. I reject the radical reformation (anabaptist theology). Historically, these Reformed Churches were known as evangelical churches because they preached the gospel. As John Calvin once pointed out, the two main criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church was their idolatrous worship and their obfuscation of the doctrines of justification and sanctification.

You will see though that the protest of the Reformers was not only directed at Rome. If you read through the Belgic Confession, the radical reformation also came under serious critique. Later on, the Synod of Dort was written in response to the errors of Jacobus Arminius. So in the good tradition of the Reformation, it is my duty to protest whatever sin and error creeps into the vineyard of the Lord.

I do not reject these protests of the Reformation. Nevertheless, today my protest is against the hot, steaming mess of secularism that has devastated churches across Canada, bringing the Christian home to almost near collapse, and wreaking havoc amidst the holy things of God. This secularism has made inroads into Reformed & Baptist churches alike, hollowing out mainline Protestantism with godlessness.

We saw this secularism go into full bloom during the COVID lockdowns. There was nothing sacred left. The gods of secularism waved their banners in our sanctuaries. The twin gods of modern secularism – statism & scientism – marched into our places of worship and roared. The wild boars came in from the forests to ravage our sanctuaries – it was all very sanitary, there was lots of hand sanitizer – but the destruction was wholescale. Many churches are still reeling. The holy and sacred things of God, like the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, where either heavily choked, or ceased to exist for over a year or two. The sacraments of scientism replaced the religion that the secularists thought they had killed. We signalled our virtue with masks and social distancing, were justified by the jab. What resulted was a systematic and almost complete privatization of religion. This is the goal & aim of the godless ideology of secularism.

From the strangle-hold of secularism on the Canadian Church arose a merry band of men who would contend once again for the Lordship of Christ, not only behind the eyes and between the ears, but a vision for the Lordship of Christ that begins in the sanctuary and flows out into the world.

What happened during lockdowns was not new. For years, religion was being increasingly privatized, not only in Canada, but also in Reformed & Presbyterian Churches, even ones that historically boasted of a complete world & life view. For years, families had made excuses that they could stay home from the gathered assembly to watch a pastor on YouTube 2000 miles away who neither knew them nor cared for their souls. For years, the Christian family had been drifting from sound Biblical practices like family worship and the proper discipline and teaching of Christ in the Christian home.

This is my protest. I oppose secularism. I’m a straight up 5-point Calvinist. I love the Reformed confessions from back to front. I’m deep into covenant theology. The gospel is also for babies. I love Presbyterial systems that bind the local church in unity to the universal church. Over the years I was willing to pick my fights, my hills to die on. But this was the last hill before the advance of this soul-crushing secularism. If the secular state can throttle a worshipping church for weeks and months and years, then what are they capable of doing? My protest stands opposed to all the godless secularism that has done so much damage to the Christian church and home in our nation. Not only has it scrubbed the public square of reference to Christ & His Lordship. As demons always do, they are not satisfied with the public square. They will put chains on the doors of our church buildings and come for our children. They will come for worship, because all reformation and transformation in society flows from the sanctuary.

Secularism be damned. A boar has been unleashed in the vineyard of the Lord.

We could consider other problems have have only accelerated the secularization of the church into a place that accepts the morality of the day and ceases to declare the Lordship of Christ. The song of the twin sirens of feminism and Marxism have gripped the imagination of the church for the last 100 years. Already weakened by theological liberalism that undermined the authority of God’s Word in the early 1900s, much of the church has fallen wholescale to the siren call of identity politics, whoring herself out to other gods. This happens both in left-wing and right-wing politics, that hold the church hostage to political ideologies, imagining that the state really is the arbiter of truth. But what is important here is to see that secularism, or any other ‘ism’ that disposes of the proper teaching of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all, first and foremost in His Church, is the root of all the other ‘isms’ that bring chaos and division in the Church.

So here is my protest. I protest by doing my duty before Christ and His Church.

As a pastor I am committed to the ministry of the Word and the sacrament as well as faithful spiritual discipline in the church. As of February 2025, I have been ordained for 5 years. It is this commitment to the faithful ministry of the Word & sacrament that has marked my first 5 years of ministry. I pray that it will mark the next 50 if God gives me 82 years of life and upholds my ministry before Him for that many more years in His gracious gift. Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6–7: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” God has given us this gift through the laying on of hands, so that we would be His embassy here on earth. Pastors are given “a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” in order to accomplish the mission. As Paul says in 2 Timothy 1:13–14: “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” He continues 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.” My desire is that if Jesus returns tomorrow, He will find me committed to the ministry of the Word and of the sacrament. That is my protest against secularism.

As a father I am dedicated to teaching my children the Scriptures. We read either the ESV or NKJV translation of the Bible at the dinner table from day to day. We also read from Rev. Kevin De Young’s retelling of the Bible stories for little children. We sing together. We pray the Lord’s Prayer. I want my children to know the Scriptures, how to live holy lives, from the youngest of ages. We have fun together. I tickle my children. I kiss my wife. That is my rebel yell against the secularism that is destroying our homes.

This is my protest. To live by the Bible. To love the church wherever she may be found. To submit to those godly authorities that the Lord has placed over me. To promote the Lordship of Christ. To lead my church and my home in repentance and faith in Christ. To worship the Triune God. To take my family into the assembly of saints gathered to worship the living God. To lead a holy life. To rejoice in His goodness. To accept my lot and rejoice in my toil, knowing that Jesus is Lord over that too.

This is my protest. Jesus is Lord!

Photo by Alex Woods on Unsplash

On January 30, 2025 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

A Scattering of X posts from Rev. Rich Lusk on a variety of contemporary discussions

I am posting some X content here from Rev. Rich Lusk. The posts are his, the categories and taglines (which link to X) are mine. He posts on theology, church, culture, politics. A lot of his stuff is helpful to a number of contemporary discussions. I encourage you to follow his account here if you have X.

Rev. Rich Lusk –

On Antisemitism

Was Martin Luther Antisemitic?

Martin Luther was not anti-Semitic, at least not in the way that term is usually understood. He was anti-false religion. He had scathing things to say about the Jews because he opposed their religious faith, just as he had scathing things to say about the Turks because he opposed their Muslim faith. (Note that in the case of Muslims, Luther identified adherents of a false faith with an ethnic category. He did something similar with the Jews of his day.)

Martin Luther did not operate with modern racial categories at all. He was not a racist in any proper sense of the term. His opposition to the Jews stemmed from their theology and resultant practices, not their genetics or physical lineage. He saw the Jewish religion (Judaism) as a false religion and, because Jews rarely converted in his day, a threat to the Christian society in which he lived.

Luther said many terrible things about the Jews that he should not have said. Some of what he said should be done to Jews was likely hyperbole, and would make even the staunchest theonomist blush (eg, he wanted synagogues burned as an application of Deuteronomy 13), but such rhetoric was not uncommon in Luther’s day. Lutherans in recent generations have rightly condemned much of what Luther said and distanced themselves from it. But it’s important to understand that for Luther, the issue was religion, not race. He should be read along the lines of an old covenant prophet attacking a people who have fallen into idolatry rather than a modern racist bigot who targets people because of physical features.

In his final sermon, Luther said this about the Jewish people: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.” This not the attitude of a man opposing a people because of their racial heritage; rather, it is the view of a man opposing a false religion, hoping they will convert to true Christian faith. The very fact that Luther would long for the conversion of the Jews, or even hold it out as a possibility, must be the lens through which we view all his anti-Jewish writings. To put it another way, Luther’s view of the Jews in his day was more like Jeremiah (pronouncing a curse on unrepentant Jews) than Hitler (hating Jews because he sees them as an irredeemable cancer on humanity).

Of course, it would be the Reformed branch of Protestantism that would develop the most hopeful view of the future of the Jewish people. Either through a particular futurist reading of Romans 11:26 or a more generalized postmillennial eschatology, many Reformed Christians came to believe that God will ultimately convert and save the Jewish people. This does not necessitate believing the Jews somehow have a “special” role in God’s economy apart from Christ (the way Dispensationalists do), but it does mean we can trust God will convert them, even as he promises to convert all people groups (Psalm 22:27f).

Further Clarification

There’s some confusion over my post below on Luther and the Jews so let me clarify with a biblical analogy.

God commanded the Israelites in Joshua’s day to utterly destroy the Canaanites living in the land of promise. Why did God command the Canaanites’ destruction? Was this genocide? Was the judgment based on race?

No, it was emphatically not genocide and not based on race. God commissioned the annihilation of the Canaanites not because of their genetic lineage but because of their religious faith and practice. Scripture makes that clear in a multitude of ways, so I’ll limit myself to just a few of them.

Consider several factors:

First, God delayed the conquest until the iniquity of the Canaanites reached its full measure. The land could not be conquered in Abraham’s day because the Canaanites did not yet deserve it. They were not yet evil enough to warrant such a severe judgment.

Second, Canaanites could be spared the judgment if they repented and converted to the service of YHWH. Rahab is the paradigm of this – she is a Canaanite who comes to fear YHWH, shows loyalty to his people rather than her own, and then gets incorporated into Israel (and even the messianic line) through marriage. Obviously the possibility of Canaanite salvation and incorporation into Israel would not have been possible if this was genocide. It was more like idolater-cide than genocide.

Third, note that God threatens to bring a Canaanite-like judgment on Israel if they fall into the ways of the Canaanites, serving their gods and adopting their way of life. Israel was not immune to judgment. God is impartial; his judgments do not depend on ethnicity but ethics. He judges people not according to genetic lineage but faithful obedience.

My point is that Luther’s denunciations of the Jews in his day function in a similar way. He does not pronounce judgment on the Jews because of their race, as if he were calling for genocide. His hostility to the Jews stems from what he perceives to be their false religion and the pernicious way of life it produces. Whether or not the Jews posed as much of threat to Christendom as Luther feared is for specialized historians to determine; but reading Luther’s own words carefully shows what the real issue was for him.

I am not trying to justify Luther’s hateful words towards Jews. Much of what he said was irresponsible and inexcusable. But I do think as a matter of historical importance we need to understand what Luther actually said and why he said it. There is way too much sloppy thinking these days about the categories of race, ethnicity, and religion.

On Natural Affection

Thoughts from John Calvin

According to John Calvin, love (including natural affection, or “storge”) is not be limited to one’s family, nation, or race but extends to all who bear God’s image:

“The Lord commands us to do good unto all men without exception, though the majority are very undeserving when judged according to their own merits. But scripture here helps us out with an excellent argument when it teaches us that we must not think of man’s real value, but only of his creation in the image of God to which we owe all possible honor and love.”

In Calvin’s view, when we love our neighbor (whoever he is), we are loving the God whose image he bears.

Image of God

Some of the fringe right seem to think that appealing to the image of God in all men is a kind of left-leaning cope, a sign that someone is living under the progressive gaze.

But this is actually the teaching of John Calvin: “We are not to look to what men in themselves deserve but to attend to the image of God which exists in all and to which we owe all honor and love.”

Leftward Drift

The leftward drift and elitism of Big Eva is seen in its commonly held view that love for one’s city is good and love for the world is good, but love for one’s nation is bad.

Ecclesiocentrism

Thoughts on the Church

Ecclesiocentrism means both judgment and reformation begin with the house of the Lord (the church).

Ecclesiocentrism is a matter of faith, not sight. The church does not always *look* like the core and central institution in a nation or in history, but she is in God’s sight. Scripture makes this plain.

Both the rise of Western civilization and its decline can best be understood in ecclesiocentric terms. Western civilization is an ecclesiocentric story. Even our great military and political heroes can best be understood in terms of their faith and connection to the church. Faithful churches produce discipled nations. Churches that lose their saltiness produce rotten, corrupt societies.

God blesses or judges societies (including civil rulers) based on their posture towards the church. To paraphrase Genesis 12, God will bless those who bless the church and curse those who curse the church. (Side note: Based on this criteria, I expect good things from the Trump administration. While I have doubts about the quality of Trump’s personal faith in Jesus, there is no question he appreciates conservative/evangelical Christians and very much wants to include us in what’s he is doing – quite the opposite of the other main political party that mocks us and hates us. Trump wants to “bless” faithful Christians and is willing to transact with us, while he seems to have a proper and justified disdain for the liberal church).

Ecclesiocentrism does not mean the church replaces other spheres or usurps their roles. Ecclesiocentrism holds to sphere sovereignty, though it contends the church is the central sphere in certain important ways. While the church does not replace other spheres, the church does have a responsibility to disciple other spheres.

Ecclesiocentrism is not pietism, which confines piety to participation in church activities, or which prioritizes vocations connected to the institutional church. Ecclesiocentrism does not mean that elders are supposed to run civil affairs or even tightly control the lives of church members.

Ecclesiocentrism focuses on the power of liturgy and prayer to shape people and history; it emphasizes preaching and discipline as tools and weapons in the cultural and spiritual battles we are in; it points to the church’s calling as a people who suffer and serve their way to victory and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Ecclesiocentrism highlights the church’s role as a public, political body, not merely a private, voluntary organization. The church is a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Ecclesiocentrism is rooted in the fact that the church is a divinely built, divinely maintained, and divinely victorious body. Ecclesiocentrism focuses on the promises God has made to the church, the power he has given to the church, and the mission he has assigned to the church.

Ecclesiocentrism does not replace conventional political activism with political prayers; rather it grounds the former in the latter, remembering the words of Jesus, “without me you can do nothing.”

Liturgical Reformation

Before Joshua could conquer the land of Canaan militarily, politically, and culturally, Abraham had to conquer it liturgically. Abraham toured the land of Canaan, building altars, places of worship, which laid the foundation for the conquest to come. Liturgy is the basis of dominion. The key to cultural transformation is liturgical reformation.

Pastor’s Job

The fundamental job of the pastor is to prepare his people to face death and the judgment that follows.

MAGA

America will never be great again without great churches.

More specifically, America will never be great without great churches, singing great hymns and psalms, hearing great biblical sermons, enjoying great fellowship within the body, following the leadership of great elders who truly shepherd the flock wisely, and doing great works of service.

Want to make America great again? Make the church in America great again.

Political Theology

Criteria for Political Theology

Here are my criteria for a political theology:

1. It must incorporate special and general revelation, since biblical law and creational law were designed to work together. Special revelation is the lens through which we interpret nature, but God never intended either form of revelation to stand alone (e.g., special revelation was given even before the fall). The scope of Scripture is comprehensive: all of Scripture is for all of life. But Scripture should be supplemented and complemented (of necessity) with what we glean from nature/natural revelation.

2. It must honor the comprehensive lordship of Christ over all nations and all of life (Psalm 2, etc), with the goal of producing Christendom (Christian civilization) comprised of fully discipled nations (the Great Commission). In a fallen world, the fulfillment of the Great Commission is necessary to the faithful fulfillment of the Creation Mandate.

3. It must respect the central role of the church in history and society, including the church’s mission to disciple the nations.

4. It must honor the legacy of Christendom, including the common law tradition and its offshoot in classical liberalism (while correcting the worst features of classical liberalism). Classical liberalism in its origins reflected both Christian and Enlightenment influences. It eventually became a rival to the gospel and to the church as an alternative ecclesiology/sociology, but it does have some features fully compatible with a biblical political theology that should be preserved.

5. It must respect the role of marriage and family as foundational to fulfilling the creation mandate. Marriage as ordained by God shoud be encouraged and defended. Children should be raised and educated covenantally.

6. It must respect the providential role God has given to nations and empires. National identity is recognized in Scripture which means patriotism (love for one’s fatherland) is good, though like all loves it must be regulated by Scriptural teaching (since nations can also become idols). At the same time, there are global empires in Scripture that operate with some degree of divine sanction, so not every feature of globalism (in the sense of empire, or colonization) is to be rejected in every case.

7. It must respect and protect economic freedom. Markets should be, in principle, both free and limited. To be truly free, markets must operate within a moral framework. Further, markets are not absolute, and can be subordinated to other interests at times, particularly since there is no possibility of genuinely free (and fair) global market at present.

8. It must respect and apply the just war tradition. One of the fundamental functions of civil government is protection of the people. A strong military discourages other nations from being aggressive and thus serves the peace. I’ve thought of different names for this combination of convictions – something like “missional theocracy” or “ecclesiocentric liberalism” but nothing has really stuck. There is more to say — this is only a rough sketch — but any biblical political theology will have to incorporate these features.

Secular nations as monoracial

A secular (or non-Christian) nation must be basically monoracial because it has no way to create peace between different racial groups. All it can ever envision is racial war and conflict between different groups. Nations that have nothing more than flesh (cf. the Pauline sense of the term) will always produce the works of the flesh. They cannot do otherwise. A nationalism of the flesh has no real options. You cannot make non-Christians of different races get along; non-Christians even of the same race struggle to get along. Racial identity politics is a cope in a multiracial non-Christian nation.

Christian nations have the work of the Spirit in their midst so they have options. Christian nations can learn from the ethnic and racial peace the gospel created in the communities of the early church (eg, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, etc.). Christian nations have a way forward. Christian nations produce a coherent culture into which Christians of other ethnicities and races can be assimilated. This does not mean Christian nations become borderless; it does mean they can be wisely hospitable in ways that non-Christian nations cannot.

America has never been as thoroughly Christian as we should have been but the intensity of our present crisis is largely due widespread apostasy into secularism.

Racial Identity Politics

You cannot defeat racial identity politics with more racial identity politics. All racial identity politics can do is produce the nihilism of Nietzsche’s will to power. It will devolve into the all the worst features of democracy that our founding fathers warned us about, including the tyranny of mob rule. Racial identity politics is the politics of anger and resentment; it cannot produce the righteousness of God.

Union with Christ

United to Christ by Faith

When you are united to Christ by faith, his righteous status is your righteous status, his vindication is your vindication, his life is your life, his story is your story, his future is your future, his security is your security. You are guilt-free and shame-free in Christ. You have a clean past because of his promise of forgiveness and a glorious future because of his promise to come again.

Federal Vision

Federal Vision debate heating up

Since discussions of the so-called Federal Vision are heating back up, I figured I’d give a quick, short summary of the key emphases of FV:

1. Creation is gift. This means there is no nature/grace dualism in the Bible and no merit theology in the Bible. Everything is grace. Grace is always already there. There was no covenant merit in the Garden of Eden; even if Adam had obeyed God and received further exaltation, he would have been obligated to say “Thank you” to God. This does not mean we cannot make distinctions, eg, common grace vs redemptive grace. But everything is gift. That’s the starting point.

2. Union with Christ is the gospel. This has implications for how we understand imputation (transfer vs shared verdict), ecclesiology (to get the benefits of the head you must be part of his body), and sacraments (since baptism and the Eucharist have to do with union and communion with Christ), etc. There are no benefits apart from union with the Benefactor. We cannot have any of Christ’s redemptive blessings without having Christ himself. Our whole salvation is contained in him. Of course, we are united to Christ by faith alone.

3. The covenant promises mean the children of Christians are Christian and should be treated accordingly. God says, “I will be a God to you and to your children.” The covenant promise determines our children’s identity, how we educate them, how we discipline them, how we nurture them, how we include them in the life of the church. FV was all about the children.

More could be said about liturgy, typology, and other particulars, but these three things are the gist of it, especially against the backdrop of the way Reformed theology is done in America today.

American Church history

Comment on the Great Awakening

One of the great tragedies in American history is that the Second Great awakening almost entirely decimated the public and cultural influence of Calvinism on our nation. Revivalism replaced Scripture with experience/emotion, divine sovereignty with human free will, a high church ecclesiology with the parachurch, liturgy with revivalistic techniques, psalms with silly praise songs, and a properly ordered hierarchy with egalitarianism. America has really never recovered.

Calvinists themselves were somewhat to blame for the shift, especially since their church planting efforts could not keep pace with westward expansion. In the early 19th century, a Methodist revivalist preacher said something like, “We Methodists are lighting the world on fire while the Presbyterians cannot even strike a match.” There was some truth to that.

Evangelicalism

Evangelicalism was a twentieth century movement that was supposed to correct the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism and bring greater respectability to the Christian faith. Has it worked out?

Obviously the evangelical movement has lacked courage and conviction, but has it solved the anti-intellectual problem? Mark Noll wrote his book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” to lament that there was no evangelical mind. In other words, evangelicalism has given us the worst of both worlds. It has not maintained the gritty courage and dogged biblical fidelity that characterized fundamentalism. But it has also failed to develop a robust intellectual culture that could push back against modernity’s rationalism. Instead, evangelicalism has become obsessed with relevance and respectability, which has allowed it to be steered further and further to the left as it chases the Overton Window and tries to look cool and winsome in the eyes of the its cultured despisers.

Christian Living

Emotions

Our culture needs a much better understanding of emotions.

Only weak people get “triggered.” If you describe yourself as “triggered,” you are advertising your emotional immaturity and instability. Mature people can control their emotional impulses and reactions because they are emotionally resilient. They are not passive towards their emotions; they work to sculpt their emotions into a Christ-like shape. The do not let their emotions run wild; they tame and direct their emotions.

Do you submit to your emotions or to God? Or to put it another way: Do you submit your emotions to God, or let them function autonomously? Either God will rule your life or your emotions will rule your life. Lack of emotional control kills relationships. If you have unregulated emotion, you need to realize you are emotionally vomiting on other people. It’s disgusting. The world will tell you that your feelings should always be validated by others and no one can tell you how to feel; on the contrary, your emotions should be evaluated (rather than validated) and God in his Word has commanded you to feel certain ways in certain situations. Train your feelings to obey God, to bow before his Word. When it’s time to rejoice, rejoice. When it’s time grieve, grieve. That’s what Jesus did.

One of the best gifts you can give your children is being a well-disciplined, emotionally regulated mom or dad. I’ve often paraphrased the gist of Edwin Friedman’s work as “In order to lead, you have to be the calmest person in the room.” This applies to mothering and fathering. Far too many parents lose teachable moments and undermine the effectiveness of parental discipline by not staying emotional controlled when their child is disobedient. If you lose your cool when your child sins, you are the one really in need of discipline. If you are undisciplined, you really cannot effectively discipline your own child. You are going to have to fix yourself first. Good parents are panic-resistant and anxiety-resistant; they parent out of faith, not fear. They can train their children because they have trained themselves.

Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash

On January 2, 2025 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture 2

Rome is not the Answer to the Ailments of Protestantism: The need for a Reformation in Ecclesiology in 2025

Protestantism is in shambles. Many historically Protestant churches have accepted radical gender ideology. Most Protestant denominations, if they haven’t adopted women’s ordination, probably will accept it in the next 25-50 years. Protestantism is radically divided, full of sectarianism.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t any better. The current pope of the Roman Catholic Church also has adopted a form of radical gender ideology. The Roman Catholic Church is still plagued with the idolatry of prayers to Mary & other saints as well as a confusion on the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). I could add more. Modern Roman Catholic theology has adopted a form of universalism, even in the writings of their more conservative theologians like John Paul II in his work the Splendour of Truth. As much as the Roman Catholic Church has a structural unity, it is divided in error. We must be united in truth, not in error.

There are a couple issues that both many Protestants as well as many Roman Catholics don’t understand. (1) The difference between the Reformation (Reformed theology) and the Radical Reformation (anabaptist theology); (2) The distinction and similarities between Calvinistic Baptist theology and historical anabaptist theology; (3) Some of the reforms in Roman Catholicism that have drifted towards Protestant critiques (many RC churches now do worship in the common tongue). (4) The way in which many Reformed and anabaptistic churches have lost their moorings in the theology that was taught at the time of the Reformation.

One of the fundamental points of the Reformation was the doctrine of sola Scriptura – that is, Scripture alone. The initial Reformers – John Calvin, John Knox, Martin Bucer, Martin Luther, etc – did not reject the work of the Spirit in the history of the church. But the fundamental thing that they did was build it on Scripture as the final rule for faith and life. This is what the orthodox church has done throughout history from Clement to Augustine. In this manner, the Reformers maintained catholicity with the church of all times and ages. Notice that when I speak of Reformed, I include Anglican (British Reformed), Presbyterian (Scottish Reformed), Lutheran (Norse Reformed), the Reformed in the Netherlands (Dutch Reformed). Various Reformed confessions arose in these countries to combat the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and to defend themselves against charges of anabaptistic theology (read the Belgic Confession closely).

Here is where it gets confusing. I have more in common with a Baptist, a Pentecostal or a Roman Catholic guy who reads his Bible than a Reformed guy who doesn’t read his Bible. I have been blessed by the writings of Calvin Robinson, for example, but I stoutly disagree with him on his various teachings re Mariolatry and his belief that John Calvin was a heretic (he is old orders Catholic, not Roman Catholic). I agree with Calvin Robinson (and John Calvin) that we must dispose with the root of Marxism and Feminism in the Protestant world. He has a very important warning when he warns Protestants of this. Why? Because the message of the Bible is antithetical to all such ideologies that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. There are portions of the Protestant world fighting against these things and the prevalence of anabaptistic theology. The Roman Catholic Church has much bigger problems to deal with.

There are a lot of guys swimming the Tiber back to Rome. It’s a two-way bridge, yes. But as much of popular evangelicalism devolves into silliness, men are looking for a stable foundation in the midst of all the foment and revolution in North American ecclesiology. They are looking for order, even if it is only the appearance of order.

Therein lies the problem. Much of the church in North America does not have an ecclesiology. Those that do have an ecclesiology, all to often retreat into sectarianism in order to protect the order of their churches. Batten down the hatches! There’s a storm coming! No credobaptists allowed!

Well, that storm is upon us with the widespread dissemination of information with the internet and artificial intelligence. It’s time to face this problem head-on, to meet it with a grin and a firmness of faith and doctrine, because guys will be swimming back and forth over the Tiber whether we like it or not.

In 2025, we need a reformation in ecclesiology. What is a proper doctrine of the church? What does Christ desire of His Church, His blood-bought bride? The faltering courage that leads to churches locking their doors for 2+ years of lockdowns. The constant push for women’s ordination. In broader evangelicalism, the lack of church government, the Ted Talks, the fog machines and gaudy displays of kitschy pop Christianity.

It’s all in our Reformational documents. But the Reformation has experienced a mission drift. There are many faithful men and pastors who are braving it out in the wild, little islands in their almost entirely apostate denominations. Sure, I recognize that there are the two-office churches (Scottish Reformed) and the three-office churches (Dutch Reformed). The CREC is bringing them together. The Anglicans tend to be a bit more hierarchical. But even if we can’t figure it out right away, we can recognize each other’s ordinations.

You see, the Reformation was not united by a reductionistic gospel (like the TGC). The Reformation was not united by an institutionalism (like the Roman Catholic Church). The Reformation was not united by compromise (like modern liberal ecumenical movements). It was united by sound doctrine.

There were problems. Bucer lamented that churches struggled with knowing what were the minors and what were the majors. The Reformation was not a golden age in any sense of the word. But when the Reformers were driven out while seeking to reform Rome, they united around sound doctrine that can be found in the confessional documents of the Reformation. At the time they had to settle for national churches, and that has led to its own problems 500 years down the road. But praise God that some of the local magistrates did indeed protect them from the attacks of Rome.

As we look forward to the future, it would be foolish & sinful to go back to Rome. It is impossible to go back to the national ecumenical structures that were built at the time of the Reformation. Yes, we can and should learn from the ancient church. We should study the order of Dordt and Presbyterial order in Scotland and the order for the French churches. We should immerse ourselves in confessional and historic theology and in the teachings of the church fathers. Yes, we need scholars, young men who will boldly study these matters even in the face of mockery and persecution.

But if we can build again a bulwark of Reformed Catholic Christianity in North America, being humble about our sins and weaknesses in the contemporary church, always submitting to the words of Christ, then I am convinced we will see another Reformation grip the heart of the West. But in doing so, there is no skirting around issues of the doctrine of the Church.

I’m not so interested in controversies surrounding independent baptist or baptist/reformed churches like Right Response Ministries or Refuge Church in Ogden, Utah. I have found some of their content interesting over the years. But there are things happening in every town and city of this nation, next door, where Christians are reforming their churches according to the Word of God.

This is one of the reasons I love the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Committee. This is why I keep an eye on conservative Anglican and conservative Lutheran movements and conservative movements in liberal Presbyterian denominations. I keep an eye on churches in evangelicalism that are reading their Bibles and seeing the need for reforms in various places. I expect as this revolution in information and learning happens, we will see Roman Catholic priests and Eastern Orthodox priests considering the goodness of Reformed catholicity. This is one of the reasons I am in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches.

I love the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. It is an article of faith, but it is also something Christ really is forming in the midst of this world of sin and misery.

Final Note: this was initially posted on my Substack on Dec. 30, 2024 – here. I posted another article in this vein on Kuyperian commentary back in April, 2024 – here.

Photo by Wim van ‘t Einde on Unsplash

On September 23, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture 2

Cults, Sects and Catholicity

What is the difference between a cult and a sect? Here is how I define these terms. A cult is outside of Christianity – ie Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses. A cult rejects the truths of creedal Christianity that are the centre of the Christian faith. A sect is within Christianity, but separates itself from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in various ways. It maintains the creedal truths of Christianity, but it rejects fellowship (at times) with Christian brothers over secondary and tertiary issues. You should be able to see under those definitions how cults can so easily arise in the midst of a church that is prone to sectarianism. This is why North America has been a seedbed for cults (JWs, Mormons, etc). North America is rife with sectarianism. If Christ alone is the Head of the church and His Word is the charter for that church, and He defines the boundaries of His Church, that should put a check on sectarianism.

This is why North America has been a seedbed for cults (JWs, Mormons, etc). North America is rife with sectarianism.

Historically, the Reformed Churches sought to maintain a sense of catholicity in the midst of sectarian and even cultic teachings. It was the criticism of various Reformed pastors at the time of the Reformation that the anabaptists, the Radical Reformers, were sectarian (not cultic). Some of the anabaptist did verge on the cultic such as the anabaptists in Munster. Even though many of the Reformers had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the initial goal of the reformation had been reform, not to leave the Roman Catholic Church.

While my Anglican and Presbyterian colleagues have similar statements, which reflect the broad sense of catholicity among the reformers, I will focus on the Three Forms of Unity here.

I would encourage all Protestants who are meditating on what it means to have a Protestant (or Reformed) doctrine of the Church to read the Belgic Confession, Articles 27-32. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 25, 30, 31. Read the 39 Articles, articles 19-21.

In the Belgic Confession, the author uses the language of true church and false church, this statement of faith was formally adopted by an ecclesiastical body at the Synod of Dordt in 1620, a synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches, but a synod at which there was a substantial international delegation that included both Anglicans and Presbyterians. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, the authors use the language of pure and purer churches and acknowledge that even the purest churches on this side of heaven, are subject to sin and error, and that some have so much sin and error that they have become synagogues of Satan. The Westminster Confession of Faith was adopted by a “synod” in Scotland in 1646, following the Synod of Dordt.

The point of these remarks is to indicate that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not see themselves as the “only pure church” or that the Dutch Reformed Church did not see themselves as the “only true church”. Instead, they struggled to maintain a strong sense of catholicity even as there was so much foment and revolution happening across Europe. At the same time, they were determined to call “a heresy a heresy.” There are synagogues of Satan, both in their land at that time in history, and also at our time in history. At the same time, we don’t want to act in a sectarian fashion towards those who struggle with the same intermixing of error and sin that we struggle with in our churches as we fight and contend for the purity of the Church in Christ.

What does that look like?

For example, historically (with exceptions), the Reformed did not re-baptize Roman Catholics.

If a Roman Catholic family came to my church, we would not re-baptize the parents or their children. This would have been the same when I was a pastor in the United Reformed Church of North America as now in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. This really was one of the major flash-points of the reformation as the anabaptists were the “re-baptizers” and the Reformed accepted the Trinitarian baptisms of the Roman Catholic Church.

In our congregation we welcome all Christians to the Lord’s Table who are baptized in the Triune Name and who are connected to the Church of Jesus Christ. More subjectively we warn those who are living in unrepentant rebellion and come to the Table of Christ in such a spirit, that they will eat and drink judgment on themselves. Of course, we welcome all to come and see that the Lord is good, we extend the free offer of the gospel, we welcome sinners to trust in Christ and to pass through the waters of baptism and then to come to the Table of the Lord.

It is in this way, that we seek to maintain unity with the church of all times and ages, the one, holy catholic and apostolic church, as it pursues Jesus Christ by faith.

We should take cues from how Augustine handled the donatists and from how John Calvin handled the anabaptists of his era. We recognize a sect for what it is. But we don’t act in a sectarian way towards those who love Jesus, but due to error or confusion, segregate themselves from large parts of His Church. I think here also of the way in which Paul dealt with error in Colossae. He warns against the error, but in that case, he doesn’t call for immediate excommunication for those who are struggling with the inter-mixture of strange philosophies with the doctrine of Christ. He does call for clear teaching on the supremacy of Christ, nevertheless.

Cults, on the other hand are not Christian at all. Cults abandon the true doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Christ. For that reason, as Christians, we should acknowledge that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are cults. There is also something cultic about theological liberalism in the church, in its rejection of sound doctrine, and its embrace of heretical teachings. Theological liberalism is no longer Christian or Church. If you read Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen, he makes the point well that those who reject the Trinity, the divinity & humanity of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Word of God, that is not Christianity at all. That is why you see many of the mainstream denominations dying out, as most churches that reject the Word of God will disappear or become a full-blown cult like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notice how Mormons and JWs have also rejected the historic Christian Church. There is a point at which sects can verge on the cultic, especially wherever Jesus Christ is rejected as Savior and Lord. We see that in the moral chaos that has ensued in many of the mainstream churches upon their rejection of core doctrines.

The all-encompassing purpose of any true or pure church is that in everything Jesus Christ would be preeminent (Col 1). Read also the goal of Paul’s ministry in Romans 1:1-6.

Finally, in its popular use, the term “cult” is frequently used to describe the visible manifestation of power or control in a society. There are scary things and horrific abuses that happen in these cults because men (and women), being sinful by nature, tend to believe that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to them, rather than to Christ. These things do happen from time to time within the true church as well. Every visible assembly of believers has both hypocrites and sinners. In fact, the church has been described as a “hospital for sinners”. Even (especially!) the pastors of the churches must trample daily over the bellies of their own lusts. But what distinguishes the true or pure church from these cults or synagogues of Satan, is that these churches seek to correct these sins and errors, not only among their members, but also among their leaders.

You see, in this world, it is not about whether, but which, authority you will submit too. Is it the authority of Christ or the Devil? You must see here the centrality of the Biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church (Col 1, Eph 1). Any authority that is wielded by the officers of the church is delegated authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18-20; I Peter 5), not transferred authority. Jesus is the King and we are His subjects. We must bend our necks to the yoke of Jesus Christ, which is easy, and His burden light. The false church does not bend its neck to the yoke of Christ and as a result places its neck under the iron yoke of the tyranny of sin & of the Devil. All ministers, pastors, elders, deacons, theological professors are servants of Jesus Christ, the only universal bishop of the Church. The officers of the church, as guardians of the church, are not called to act on their own authority, on their own whims, rolling with the tides of culture and popular opinion, but rather, ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.

This why the Apostle Paul when he advances the ministry of reconciliation in II Corinthians 5, in the power of the Spirit says boldly: “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (II Cor 5:13-15)

You see then, how Paul directs the power of the gospel into service. The work of the catholic church is for the life of the world, in service to Christ who is the sole Head of the Church, the King of kings and Lord of lords, that in everything He might be supreme.

End note: This post was initially posted on Substack by Nathan Zekveld

Photo by ThrowBack Graphics on Unsplash

On June 11, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

The Power of the Prophetic Word

Open the Bible and you will see prophets calling both king and priest to faithfulness to God. In David’s Palace, the prophet Nathan stands with his finger pointed, crying out “you are the man.” As Jeroboam approaches his idolatrous altar to make sacrifices to an idol, a man from Judah marches up to that place of idolatry and calls down the judgment of God on him. Amos, that rough and tumble farmer from Tekoa, cries out for the northern kingdom to return to the Lord. John the Baptist is beheaded for challenging Herod on his adulteries. The Apostle Paul goes right for the center of power as he is hauled off in chains to Rome, where Christian tradition claims that he died for his Lord.

In his commentary on I & II Kings, Peter Leithart writes (p. 97): “Prophets break into and out of the normal ‘chronicled’ history, the usual progression of kings and successors, as Yahweh slices across the grain of history with his prophetic word.”

In revolutionary times, pastors must never underestimate the power of the Word preached faithfully, in the power of the Spirit and pointed at the glory and majesty and mercy of Christ.

But there are a number of ways to empty the preaching of its power. There are a number of ways that this can be done in our time.

First, the preaching of the Word can be emptied of its power by becoming a fun little TedTalk, with all the right hand gestures and voice inflection. Not that these things don’t matter (it is said that Isaiah was silver-tongued), but is a man with great rhetorical ability drawing the attention to Christ, is he faithfully dividing the Word of Truth, or is he building a ministry on a persona?

Second, the preaching of the Word can be overpowered by the beauty of the liturgy, the presence of the sacraments, the glory of song. Word and sacrament come together. Apart from the Word, the sacrament is an empty symbol, and the sacrament is the visible sign & seal of an invisible grace that the Lord uses to confirm the Word. The song is a means of employing the Word to praise God, but it is not the teaching and application of the Word. The liturgy plays a role in effectively teaching the patterns of Biblical repentance and grace and thankfulness, but again, the prophetic Word is the centerpiece that humbles the pride of man and raises him up again to serve the Lord with a thankful heart.

Third, the preaching of the Word can get lost in the pathways of a mad pursuit for political power. Rather than allowing God through His Word to do the great work of humbling the pride of kings & popes as Luther did when he was drinking beer with his friends in Wittenburg, there is a temptation for pastors to drift from their mission and seize earthly power through unlawful means that are outside their calling. A pastor is lawfully given the task to preach the Word (also to teach that Word from home to home), to administer the sacraments and church discipline under the authority of a session of elders. This does not mean that there is no place for Christians to acquire political power, but that is not the duty of the minister of the Word and sacrament. He is not called to administer God’s wrath by the power of the sword as the civil magistrate is called to do (Romans 13).

The modern Christian, and especially the modern Christian pastor, must see then the unequivocal power of the Word. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:3–6: “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” If it is a revolutionary aim, then it is only revolutionary in the sense that kings are established in their rule when they bow the knee to the true sovereign over the whole universe, which is Jesus Christ, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. And the way that we effect this as the pastors of the Christian Church is through the bold preaching of the holy gospel and by not backing down from that high calling and task when the state threatens to disband the gathering through lockdowns or locking up a pastor in prison.

The duty of the pastor then is to bind Himself to the Word and let the Word bind his speech, his actions, everything. It is in this manner that he becomes an example to kings of the great power of the Word to transform nations by transforming individual men and their families by the power of the gospel. The minister who places himself so firmly under the Word of Christ, will be an example to his flock and to the gathered church across the nation of what fidelity to Christ looks like, imitating Christ as Christ was exalted through humiliation.

In this we ought to become an example to the kings of the earth. Every godly king to must go through a humiliation, whether that be David in the caves, King Alfred in the forests of Britain, or all the kings of both the Old Testament and New Testament times who were humbled through Christian repentance and a turning to the Lord in faith.

But remember the ministers of the gospel will break. They go into stages of depression. They are on the run. They are killed and sawn in two and live in the dens and caves of the earth from time to time. But it is when the ministers of the gospel break, that the light of Christ shines out through the cracks of earthen vessels (II Cor. 4). It is the breaking of the ministers of the gospel that God has ordained as the means by which His Word will break the pride of men. Just as Gideon’s armies moved to victory when their earthen vessels were broken open, so the armies of the Lord come to victory when pastors are “are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;” (II Cor. 4:8-9)

The Word of God is the hammer that will break the pride of men and pound out Christian men into sharp pointed weapons who are able to be more and more effective with the Word in the business sphere, in the workplace, in their homes, in the town hall meeting, equiped to love and serve their communities in truth. The pastor is the vessel that the Lord raises up to bring that Word into collision with the pride of nations. This is why Paul is so concerned that Timothy be a faithful expositor of the Scriptures. Timothy and Paul are both men under orders: farmers who patiently sow seed, athletes who obey the rules, soldiers who faithfully listen and obey the commands of their Lord & Master Jesus Christ. If we would see revival & reformation sweep our land then we must see the Holy Bible faithfully opened and applied across our nation again. We must see pastors willing to take a hit and broken open, rather than deny their Lord and Master who is the sole Head of the Church. We must grow pastors who relentlessly believe that the Word is above all earthly powers and show that they believe by obeying its commands of Christ even to the point of martyrdom.

This is the prophetic Word that slices through the grain of history. As Peter writes to the Christians in exile: “…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.” (I Peter 1:23-25).

This is the Word above all earthly powers. God has invested it with the power to regenerate wicked kings, homeless men & women, and sanctimonious Christians who have a veneer of holiness but are full of dead mens bones.

So submit to it, study it, search it, love it. And preach it.

Note: this has also been posted over on Susbtack here.

Photo by Duncan Kidd on Unsplash

On May 29, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

Holy Sacraments in the Church of Jesus Christ

I have written here before with regards to the church and the office-bearers of the church and the preaching of the church. This will give some background to my claims here.

The signs and seals of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are holy sacraments that have been given to the church. They are to be used under the oversight of the watchmen and stewards within God’s Church. Apart from the context, the mutual love and accountability of the church, the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and everything that Christ has established for the church, they are used in disobedience. These sacraments belong neither to the state nor the family. Christ has given them to His Church.

This is the angle I am aiming at in this article (the ecclesiastical angle). It is only within the context of Christ’s church, that these sacraments become rich with meaning. Obviously, not in and of themselves, but in that they cannot be separated from the Word preached, and in that they are visible signs and seals that point to Christ who is the sum and substance of the sacraments.

(more…)

On April 13, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

Reformed, Protestant Ecumenism

I want to take a moment to reflect for my readers on ecumenism and how it is possible for Reformed Protestants to be ecumenical while still being faithful to Christ who is the sole Head of the Church. Does Reformed Protestant Ecumenism have to dissolve into a soft amorphous goo of dead liberalism? In fact, I will argue that Protestant theology has a stronger basis for a boldly orthodox ecumenical theology than either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. That all stems down to the catholicity of the Reformed tradition.

Let me explain.

I’ll begin with this truth. It is impossible for a church or a group of churches not to have a tradition. Every church develops a tradition, because a tradition is the framework wherein truth is passed on from generation to generation. Tradition is the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation. Tradition is the cultural expression in a church or group of churches, of a church that is either compromising, ossifying, or seeking to be faithful to the Word of God.

This is why the Reformed churches technically are not just reformed, but always reforming (semper reformanda). We are not just reforming according to any standard. When the Christian Reformed Churches of North America lost their way as a denomination (for example), it was because the cultural zeitgeist became the standard. It is that cultural zeitgeist that is also hollowing out so many denominations. But we need a standard to protect ourselves from wokeness, from feminism, from secularism hollowing out our traditions and leaving them empty shells of death. That standard is the Word of God.

Now, to be clear, when I quote from the Reformed confessions, I am quoting from a tradition, and from a confessional tradition, at that. I’m quoting from a tradition that recognizes that the tradition is not the standard, but the Word of God is the standard. The Word of God gives birth to the tradition, and the tradition is always being reformed according to the standard, that is the Word of God. Confessions are not the Word, but a response to the Word. All tradition is a response to the Word. Tradition will either express faith in Christ and belief in the authority of His Word or it will express unbelief. God’s Word commands “believe!” In confessions and traditions, the church ought to respond with clarity “I believe!”

In the Belgic Confession of Faith (French/Dutch Reformed tradition), Article 7, you will find this truth: “We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.” It continues later… “Therefore we must not consider human writings— no matter how holy their authors may have been – equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.” You will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Scottish Presbyterian Tradition), 1.10: “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” Again, you will find in the 39 Articles (British Anglican tradition), Article 6: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

I largely refer to Anglicans, Presbyterians and Reformed as the Reformed Protestant tradition although we share much in common with the 1689 London Baptist Confession as well as the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Churches. These are different traditions in various ways, but historically, each tradition had a high regard for the authority and sufficiency and inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God. Each tradition (on paper) claims to subject its tradition to the Word of God. Yes, liberalism has savaged each one of these traditions, just as wokeness and feminism and marxism and secularism is doing damage again today.

The authors Theses of Berne wrote in 1528: “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.” In the midst of the savaging of the Protestant traditions and all the divisions across the Christian world, what better hope is there for renewal, then to go to the Law and to the Testimony and there to find Christ and His will for the Church (Isaiah 8:20)? The Word of God must undermine all the fortresses of unbelief in the feminism and marxism and secularism and death that is leading to the downfall of the West and the East as well as the children of the West (Reformational Protestantism). The Word of God governs our protest and we protest unbelief and revolution wherever it might be found.

It is where the Reformed Protestant tradition diverges from both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Traditions, wherein we find the most potential for a principled ecumenicity. If you place the authority of the tradition on an equal level with the Scriptures, then you have lost the ability to reform the tradition. This is because the tradition is the standard and where it errs and contradicts itself, there will be error and contradiction in the church that upholds that standard. If the Western Church (Roman Catholics) must cling to their tradition as the true succession of the Apostles and the Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodoxy) must also cling to their tradition as the true succession of the Apostles, then which one is right? It becomes a combat of traditions without a higher standard to arbitrate contention over orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Of course, the same could happen in the Protestant world. What if the Dutch Reformed and the Scottish Presbyterians (for example) can’t work together because each one is placing their particular tradition higher than the authority of the Word of God?

Over the years, I have run into Baptists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Anglicans, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox authors who are able to contend for the truth of God’s Word against the lies of Marxism and feminism (for example). I have allies against wokeness & liberalism across the board. But I am able to recognize that because as a result of my reformed dogma, I am able to subject my own tradition to the Word of God. I seek to always be reforming my own tradition according to the Word of God (which might be a thought foreign to the RC and the EO – and even many Protestants these days).

There are a number of doctrines that I find to be confusing and even offensive to me in both the RC and the EO. For example, prayers to Mary, as much as I might try to extend the most charity to those who promote them, I find to be both Biblically and philosophically incoherent, and in worst case scenarios idolatrous (whether intentional or unintentional). For example, Roman Catholic dogma tends to blend justification and sanctification. Yet, because I have the Word of God as the highest standard, that is the standard that I can call the Roman Catholic Church and the liberal Protestant church back to. I am able to unequivocally reject both wokeness and prayers to Mary, to try to properly define the relationship between justification and sanctification, because I am seeking to faithfully reform my own tradition in subordination to the Word of Christ who is the sole Head of the Church. And while the RC and EO church pervert ancient Apostolic doctrine, nevertheless, I realize that some of their theologians are some of my greatest allies in the battle against the wokeness and liberalism of this age. Most orthodox Roman Catholic theologians still maintain the ecumenical creeds, which are faithful responses to the Word of God. We find unity where God’s Word is the highest standard. It is the Word above all earthly powers.

Traditions will always butt heads. But those who are wise will realize that we need a common standard and that we need to rally to that standard.

That standard is the Word of the Living God.

This post was also posted today, here on nathanzekveld.substack.com.

Photo by Scott Blake on Unsplash

On February 13, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture 2

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.

On February 2, 2024 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

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.

On December 13, 2023 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture Like

Authority in the Church? Upholding Ecclesiastical Office in an age of Tumult

The idea of office has fallen on hard times in North America. The fact that many Christians probably don’t know what I am referring to when I speak of “office” is an indication that I am at least running down the right trail with this criticism of modern day Christianity. This term refers to the office of an elder or a deacon in the church and more loosely to the office of every believer. If you hold to a 3/4 office view of authority in the church, then it refers the office of an elder or a deacon or a pastor or a theologian/seminary professor. I won’t get too much into that debate here.

I want to demonstrate here how this “idea of office” is a Biblical idea. It is my purpose to show how Christians must uphold their own office as believer, but also the various authority structures that Christ has ordained for His Church: at minimum the office of elder and deacon that we find in I Timothy 3.

As I launch into this topic, you should know that some of my work here is based on an old dead Dutch theologian (some of the best theology), Rev. K. Sietsma. He put out his book “the Idea of Office” already in the Pre-WW II Netherlands. The copy that I have is a book that has been translated out of the Dutch by Henry Vander Goot. It was published in 1985 by Paideia Press in Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada. There are some points that I disagree with in the book, but that is not the purpose of this essay. If I quote Sietsma, I will add the page number. That being said, find a copy if you can and try to read it. It is a short book.

The Officers of the Church:

The exact terminology of “office” is found primarily in Acts 1:20, which reads: “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’” This is referring to the work of the Apostles to find a 12th apostle, following the death of Judas for his sin of betraying Jesus. The word that is translated as “office” here comes from the Greek word “ἐπισκοπή/episkope.” It is most literally translated as “oversight” and refers to the “overseers” of the church in passages like Acts 20:28 and I Tim 3:1. You will notice that the ESV translates it as “the office of overseer” in its translation of I Tim. 3:1.

Acts 1:20 quotes from Psalm 109:8, which uses the Hebrew word “פְּקֻדָּה” to refer to “office,” a word that can also refer to “oversight” or “overseer” in the Old Testament. For example, in Numbers 4:16, Eleazar the son of Aaron is given oversight over the whole tabernacle and all that is in it. In II Kings 11:18, the priest appoints watchmen over the house of the Lord. In I Chronicles 24:3, King David with the help of Zadok appoints men to certain duties in their service. In I Chronicles 26:30, 1700 men are given oversight over Israel for all the work of the Lord and the service of the king. In II Chron. 24:11, we see these appointees referred to as officers. So if we use the language of the Old Testament, one might regard elders as officers, overseers, watchmen, who with the aid of deacons (servants) govern the church. When we see the language of these men being appointed, that might shine some light on the work of Titus (Titus 1:5) and the apostolic pattern (Acts 14:23).

Louis Berkhof brings out an interesting nuance that frequent mention is made of elders, but also bishops, to refer to a similar class of officers. While elders were not initially teachers, eventually this becomes attached to their office (Eph. 4:11, I Tim. 5:17, II Tim. 2:2). It appears in I Tim 5:17 that as time went on, some elders are given the task of rule and others the task of teaching. As an aside, the term ‘elder’ seems to emphasize age, and the term ‘bishop’ seems to stress oversight [Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine (Grande Rapids, Eerdmans, 1938), p. 158].

This is a very brief summary from one specific angle. There are many other word studies that we could do on authority in the church. But for the sake of time, I will continue. As we expand outward to look at the whole body of Biblical evidence on this, clearly then we see an idea of ordained office in both the Old and New Testaments. Certain men serve as “officers” in the Church – whether that be the deacons or elders or any of the names that are associated with “office” in the New Testament, like the Apostles or Timothy, Tychicus, Titus, etc.

The “Idea of Office”:

An office, like the “office of overseer” in I Timothy 3:1, is clearly a reality in the New Testament. There are positions of authority that are held in the church.

500

There are a couple principles that we must lay out as we develop the idea of office. First, God is the complete and absolute sovereign of all the universe. The logical conclusion of this axiomatic statement is that all human authority is then limited. It is delegated, not transferred. This is why even the civil authority is described in Scripture as “a minister of God” (Rom. 13:4).

Sietsma puts it this way:

“two elements in the idea of office come to the forefront: (1) the idea that man is charged with responsibility, though granted a certain relative independence vis-a-vis God; and (2) the idea that the essence of office depends on the divine mandate.”
Rev. K. Sietsma, The Idea of Office (Jordan Station, Paideia Press, 1985), p. 24.

Both of these points are important to understand in all the spheres of authority, whether we are considering the office of the civil magistrate, the office of overseer in the church, the office of father, or the office believer (self-government). If the essence of office depends on divine mandate, then a father’s authority over his children does not lie in himself, the authority of an overseer in the church does not lie in himself, but in the decree of the Lord. And that means that he too is a man under authority (Matt. 8:9). His authority is a limited and delegated authority.

This is why historically when the Reformers spoke of ecclesiastical authority they never simply spoke of an internal call (from the Lord), but also an external call (from His Church). If a man feels that he is called by the Lord and presses himself forward into the office of elder or deacon, that does not mean that he is indeed called. We only have his word, which can be nebulous. There is neither accountability or transparency. Timothy also had to live by the standard for elders and deacons (I Tim. 3). While Paul does commend Timothy for his track-record of life (II Tim. 3), yet Paul also appeals to the external laying on of hands (II Tim. 1:6-7). As we see in Acts 6, the selection of deacons involves a process of the Apostles and the congregation working together to call qualified men. Sietsma writes again:

“… it should not be the case that someone accepts a call because he feels capable of the office. Rather, having been called by the congregation and as such by God, the person chosen accepts the office in spiritual obedience, expecting that the Lord will increase his ability not by any miraculous strokes, but according to his faithful promise.”
Rev. K. Sietsma, The Idea of Office (Jordan Station, Paideia Press, 1985), p. 42-43

Is any one elder or pastor or deacon a servant of the congregation or of the body of elders or elders and deacons together? Primarily each one stands subject the one who has authority over all: this means that the primary act of service is to Christ. Sietsma points out that office has an administrative character in that the office-bearers of the church are called to administer the rule of Christ into the congregation. They do so by administering His Word, His sacraments, His loving and gracious discipline within the church of Christ.

This then stands in opposition to ecclesiastical anarchy, the idea that a man’s authority in the home, the state, or the church, is derived from the “will of the people”, an idea which came via the French Revolution. Sietsma writes again: “… the idea of office is destroyed as it is transformed into the idea of the mandate of the masses.” (p. 40) It also stands in opposition to the belief that a man’s authority resides in himself, his charisma, or powerful presence. Rather, any office, but especially office in the church, is subject to the glorious reign of Christ, rests in the mandate of Christ, and is limited by the rule of Christ. His yoke is easy and burden light.

On one hand, we must contend against this democratic and anti-authoritarian age which denies office all-together, or bases it entirely on a social contract (ie the will of the people). On the other hand, we must contend against those officers of the church (or state or family) who claim authority that belongs only to God (authoritarianism), when each one is called to an office to be a minister of God. It is clear that God does indeed want His church to be ruled, for there to be overseers in the church, watchmen in His house.

Why Does it Matter?

We live in a godless, anti-authoritarian, egalitarian age. In response to the spirit of the age, we see a rising authoritarianism in our civil governments. It is easy for the spirit of the age to creep into the Church. Egalitarianism is an idea that seeks to pursue complete social equality through anti-authoritarian measures. This egalitarianism can take on the form of modern day spirituality which avoids the clear command of Christ for a mystical sense of unity and oneness with the divine. The only way this egalitarianism can be achieved is by dismantling ecclesiastical government as well as other forms of government like that of the family. But as we see clearly in the Scriptures, we do not promote “office” or “authority” in the church simply because we want to or because we have an inflated sense of self-importance, but because Christ has called us too, because Christ has determined that this is one of the tools by which He will preserve and increase His holy Church. His intentions for His one, holy, catholic, church, will militate against all the false and anti-God philosophies of the modern age that raise themselves up against the knowledge of the living God and His rule in the Church (II Cor. 10:1-6).

Christ the Office-bearer:

It is important to recognize that Christ is the primary office-bearer. It is central that we uphold the inherently Biblical truth that Christ is the sole Head of His Church (Eph. 1:22, 5:23, Col. 1:18). In our Lord’s baptism in the Jordan River, the Father declared His Son to be that office bearer as He was anointed for that task by John the Baptist (Lk 3:21-22). This means that the officers of the church do not rule by their own authority. They rule by an authority that has been delegated to them. An authority that has been delegated by Jesus Christ Himself. He gives the officers of the church His Word and Spirit by which to oversee God’s people and to be watchmen in the House of the Lord.

This is constantly repeated in the Belgic Confession, for example, as the Reformed churches sought to respond faithfully to the Word of God. Christ is the eternal King (Art. 27). Jesus Christ is the only universal bishop and the only head of the church (art 31). The office-bearers of the church must not go on to command that which Jesus Christ has not ordained (Art. 32). They have authority, but it is not transferred or absolute authority, it is delegated by Jesus.

Louis Berkhof summarizes this concept in his summary of Christian doctrine:

“Christ is the Head of the Church and the source of all its authority, Matt. 23:10; John 13:13; I Cor. 12:5; Eph. 1:20-23; 4:11, 12; 5:23, 24. He rules the Church, not by force, but by His Word and Spirit. All human officers in the Church are clothed with the authority of Christ and must submit to the control of His Word.”
Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine (Grande Rapids, Eerdmans, 1938), p. 157.

The Office of Believer:

If we look at the themes of Scripture as they culminate in Christ you will see that the Scriptures present Him as our final prophet, priest and king, ordained to that office. When we are united to Him as believers, we find ourselves united to Him in that office (Rev. 1:6). We are a kingdom of priests, serving Him in this world (Rev. 1:6). This is what the Reformers referred to as “the priesthood of all believers.” There is an objective anointing to office in the baptism of a believer within the context of the church. Historically, many Reformed Christians have taught their baptized children to confess at the youngest of ages:

“… by faith I am a member of Christand so I share in his anointing.I am anointed to confess his name,to present myself to him as a living sacrifice of thanks,to strive with a free conscience against sin and the devil in this life,and afterward to reign with Christ over all creation for eternity.”
Heidelberg Catechism, LD 12, Q&A 32, https://threeforms.org/heidelberg-catechism/.

The “priesthood of all believers” or the “prophethood of all believers” or the “kingship of all believers” must be understood within the rule of Scripture (regulei Scripturae). This doctrine does not negate the command of Christ that His church be ruled by overseers and watchmen, by elders and deacons, that men like Titus and Timothy and Tychichus should be sent out to order the churches and to teach them to live in obedience to Christ. The “priesthood of all believers” is expressed in Berea when Paul praises “those noble Bereans” who tested what he taught with the Scriptures and then fell on their knees and worshipped Christ (Acts 17:10-15). It is expressed in the prayers and praise of the saints throughout the Book of Revelation. It is expressed in our acts of holy service to Christ and to one another as we find Paul call for in the first letter to Corinth. The overseers and watchmen are put in place to equip the saints for these acts of service (Eph. 4:11-12), to teach principles from the Word of God, to make the priesthood of believers more effective through godly leadership, a mighty army of men and women, boys and girls, following after the Son of God as He goes forth to war.

It is in this office of believer that the congregation is expected to choose for themselves 7 deacons in Acts 6. But they have been given a divine standard to chose men according to particular criteria (Acts 6:3, I Tim 3). God also permitted the people to choose for themselves a king in I Samuel 9, and we find in I Samuel 26, that David recognizes that Saul was not simply anointed by the people, but by the Lord.

A Final Word of Encouragement:

This is a final word for the Church to consider these issues as matters of highest importance. There is an increased flattening of the Christian faith to an individualized piety. This individualized piety wipes out the church as Christ has instituted it in this world. He intended it for the glory of God and for the sake of growing men in maturity. And for that reason our Lord instituted offices in the church – for our good and for His glory.

There is a growing level of disrespect for the ordination of a man to the office of overseer and watchman in the church – for ecclesiastical office. This is seen in the last couple of years in the arrest of various pastors in Canada (ie Rev. James Coates and Rev. Tim Stephens) and the fines imposed on other pastors for continuing in the ministry of the Word and sacraments, for acting as overseers and watchmen in the Church of Jesus Christ. Those arrests only revealed a much deeper and systematic problem across the nation, a problem that arises from both the pew and pulpit.

What we need is men who know their God, who know their Bible, who love His people, and who do their duty. This sense of duty can only arise from a deep understanding of office, and a clear understanding of the commands of Christ, both in the pew and in the pulpit, but especially among those who have been called to serve Christ and His Church as elders and deacons.

With that I want to conclude with a quote that is attributed to St. Boniface:

“Let us be neither dogs that do not bark nor silent onlookers nor paid servants who run away before the wolf. Instead, let us be careful shepherds watching over Christ’s flock. Let us preach the whole of God’s plan to the powerful and the humble, to rich and to poor, to men of every rank and age, as far as God gives us the strength, in season and out of season, as St. Gregory writes in his book of Pastoral Instruction.“
Boniface, Ep. 78: MGH, Epistolae, 3, 352, 354; from Liturgy of the Hours According to the Roman Rite (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1975).

Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash

This is the second article in a series on the Church. I posted the first as “The Church is our Mother” on October 16. The second article was initially posted here on Substack:

Author

My Protest

A Scattering of X posts from Rev. Rich Lusk on a variety of contemporary discussions

Rome is not the Answer to the Ailments of Protestantism: The need for a Reformation in Ecclesiology in 2025

Cults, Sects and Catholicity

The Power of the Prophetic Word

Holy Sacraments in the Church of Jesus Christ

Reformed, Protestant Ecumenism

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

The Pulpit and the Pure Preaching of the Holy Gospel

Authority in the Church? Upholding Ecclesiastical Office in an age of Tumult

Subscribe

Podcast

Donate

Authors

Categories

John MacArthur Resigns After COVID Outbreak

The Glass Castle: How to “Skedaddle” Through Life

Why I No Longer Participate in Racial Reconciliation Services

Theology as Application to All of Life

Solomon’s Great Prayer and the Declaration of Forgiveness

The Word Made Flesh

Presuppositional Epistemology

A Dying Pope, JD Vance, and Anti-Catholic America

A Protestant Lent in the Beautitudes

An Encouragement For Family Worship

Comments

Publications

Follow Us

Find us on Facebook

Archives

Search