MENU

Politics
Category

On March 30, 2017 By In Politics

Engaging the University with a Doubleshot of Bavinck(s)

bavink

Guest Post By Tyler Helfers

One of my passions in serving as a campus minister is to introduce our students and faculty to dead, Dutch theologians. Perhaps it is an obligation because I serve in the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA), and study at Calvin Theological Seminary. However, I tend to think it is because of the tremendous gift these men are to the Church, and how, even today, their works remain relevant to faith and practice in our academic setting.

While I could talk of Vos, Kuyper, Schilder, Dooyeweerd, Van Til, Berkouwer, or Ridderbos, I find myself drawing most often on two others: Herman Bavinck and J.H. Bavinck. In a society that champions the sovereignty of self, and increasingly convinced that religion is irrelevant to the common way of lifea, the works of both Bavincks—a balance of cultural nous and confessional fidelity, missional zeal and Kingdom vision—serve as a blessing and bright hope for the future of both the church and wider culture.

Nature and Grace

At the heart of Herman Bavinck’s theology is the principle that “grace restores nature.” According to Bavinck, the religious antithesis should be between grace and sin, not between grace and nature, as posited by the dualistic approaches of both Roman Catholicism and the Anabaptists.b Bavinck writes:

Grace restores nature and takes it to its highest pinnacle…The re-creation is not a second, new creation. It does not add to existence any new creatures or introduce any new substance into it, but it is truly “re-formation.” In this process the working of grace extends as far as the power of sin.c

The implications of this are profound and all encompassing. Not only are fallen human beings reconciled to God and restored to fellowship with Him, but also enabled by the Holy Spirit to once again live out their created purpose (vocation). However, the re-forming effects of grace are also extended to the whole of nature, including the world of culture, society, and politics.d

As it relates to campus ministry, the blessing of this principle is twofold. First, it guards against the twin dangers of separatism and secularism. Much of what is encompassed under the banner of “campus ministry” is nothing more than an Anabaptist separatism that Bavinck describes as “[only] rescuing and snatching of individuals out of the world which lies in wickedness; never a methodical, organic reformation of the whole, of the cosmos, of the nation and country.e” Thus, ministries engage primarily in evangelism, Bible study, and providing a sub-culture for Christian students (as opposed to a holistic approach to discipleship and working for reformation of the broader campus culture). On the other hand, the principle thwarts the efforts of secularism to relegate faith in general, and the work of Christ in particular, to private life and the heart. As a result of the way in which God is at work, faith cannot help but find expression in the public square, and do so in ongoing, relevant ways that point to Christ and the Kingdom.

(more…)

  1. a) Christopher Dawson, Religion and World History: A Selection from the Works of Christopher (University of California: Image Books, 1975), 257. He goes on to explain that the “process of secularisation arises not from the loss of faith but from the loss of social interest in the world of faith. It begins the moment men feel that religion is irrelevant to the common way of life and that society as such has nothing to do with the truths of faith.”  (back)
  2. b) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Abr. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 82.  (back)
  3. c) Ibid, 498.  (back)
  4. d)Ibid, 83.  (back)
  5. e) Jan Veenhof, “Nature and Grace in Bavinck,” Pro Rege 34, no. 4, (June 2006), p. 17.  (back)

Read more

On March 18, 2017 By In Politics

Smith, Dreher, and the Prophet Daniel

 

daniel

Like many, I’ve followed with fascination the quibbles surrounding Rod Dreher’s much discussed Benedict Option. On the one hand, I’m quite sympathetic to the Benedict Option. Dreher has kindly quoted my writing while discussing the BenOp, and I found James K.A. Smith’s WaPo review uncharitable. On the other hand, I do have concerns that the BenOp may be used by believers as an excuse to evade the call to bring all spheres of life under the good rule of King Jesus. There’s always the temptation to become a shining city in a valley.

In the end, it seems to me that both perspectives—the missional mindedness of Smith and the ecclesial base-shoring of Dreher—are two emphases the church needs, and needs to hold together. Balancing such tensions is part and parcel of mature Christian thinking (take the tension between common grace and the antithesis, for example). Of course, striking such balances isn’t a new challenge. In his classic Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher Wright shows how the Prophet Daniel similarly held two seemingly imossible realities together: serving the city while rebuking the city. Says Wright:

“Another good example of the normative stature of the covenant law even in a pagan situation would be Daniel again. Living at a time when his people were an oppressed minority, he had visions of the empire as essentially ‘beastly’ in character. In other words, like Jeremiah, he was fully aware of the state as ultimately an enemy of God, indeed a kind of God-surrogate, destined for God’s final destruction. Nevertheless, he not only chose to serve the state at the civil-political level, but also took the opportunity to challenge that state in the name of the ‘God of heaven’ to mend its ways in line with a paradigm of justice derived from Sinai (4:27).

The subtlety and mature balance of Daniel’s stance is remarkable. Knowing that it was God himself who had given Nebuchadnezzar all authority and dominion, he nevertheless did not feel bound to obey him in every particular but set limits on the extent of his submission to the state. His understanding of divine appointment of human authority did not make him a passive pawn of the state. But on the other hand, knowing that Babylon was one of the ‘beasts’ of his visions, an agent of evil and destruction with spiritual dimensions, he nevertheless continued his daily political duty at the office desk (8:27), maintaining his integrity and his witness at the top level of national life. His understanding of satanic influence on human powers did not make him an escapist from political involvement. Christians need a similarly balanced understanding of their political and social responsibilities within states that may not acknowledge God but are still part of God’s world.”

Read more

On February 28, 2017 By In Politics

Wisdom Lit: The Broad Framework of the Gospel

solomon

I’m currently reading through the manuscript of O. Palmer Robertson’s forthcoming The Christ of Wisdom. The book will surely come to be known as essential reading for anyone interested in interpreting Old Testament Wisdom Literature in a Christ-Centered way (along with the stellar work already done by Jack Collins, Craig Bartholomew, Douglas O’Donnell, Sidney Greidanus, and Jonathan Akin).

A key emphasis of Robertson’s work generally, and this book particularly, is the holistic nature of the gospel. That is, God sets us right in Christ so that we might live a more full, human life. Thus, while we can never embody the wisdom literature in order to gain God’s favor, we surely will attempt to live out the wisdom literature once we have the favor of God. Why? Because it’s the human way to live, and that’s part and parcel of Christ’s mission: restoring the imago dei in his bride. Says Robertson:

“It may at first seem odd to speak of the ‘gospel’ of Ecclesiastes in any sense. Indeed, nothing in the precise terms of justification by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone is explicitly taught in Ecclesiastes. Yet as has been indicated, the book teaches lessons that are essential, as preparatory to our enjoyment of the Gospel.  The New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts, as Christianity’s gospel is first being formulated among all nations, speaks of the ‘good news’ of the ‘gospel’ in a broad framework. It speaks repeatedly of the ‘gospel’ in terms of the logos (Acts 4:29; 6:4; 8:4, 21; 14:25; 15:7; 16:6); the logos of God (4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 13:46; 17:13; 18:11); the logos of the Lord (8:25; 13:44, 48–49; 15:35–36; 16:32; 19:10, 20); and the logos of his grace (14:3; 20:32). In these contexts, the logos of the gospel includes more than simply explaining how a sinner is justified. Instead, it encompasses a comprehensive Christianity that embraces an entirely new concept regarding the meaning and experience of life. The good news, the logos of the kingdom of God (Matt. 13:19), has a vitalizing impact on all aspects of human life. So in this broader sense, Ecclesiastes is full of the gospel.”

Robertson goes on to to emphasize the inherent goodness of creation. In so doing, he shows that “earthy” wisdom must not be contrasted with “spiritual” wisdom. This is God’s good world, living by his words (wisdom) will naturally lead to greater understanding and enjoyment of his world:

“[God] provides pleasure, satisfaction, and sustenance in the daily routines of eating, drinking, and working. This ability to enjoy the routine matters of life comes directly from the hand of God (Eccl. 2:24). In fact, the enjoyment of the common things of life should be regarded as a distinctive gift from God: ‘that everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God.’

Yet these ‘simple’ things of life are actually rather profound. God the Creator put man (adam, ‘humanity’) in a garden and gave him access to all the trees that were beautiful to the eyes and good to eat (Gen. 2:9). In their desert wanderings, the people of God lived with- out the fruit of the trees. But upon their entering the land of promise, this basic blessing of life was restored. God directed them to annually celebrate this restoration to the enjoyment of the trees at the Festival of Tabernacles, which reminded them of their years of deprivation in the desert even as they feasted in the garden of their restored paradise:

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the Lord seven days. . . . And you shall take on the first day the fruit of splendid trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. (Lev. 23:39–40 esv)

So when Qohelet speaks repeatedly of enjoying God’s blessing of food and drink, of work and wife, he refers to no mundane matters. He echoes the enjoyment of the blessings of paradise. He takes his readers back to humanity’s original condition at creation and to the creational ordinances of labor and marriage: ‘Subdue the earth’ and ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. 1:28). Neither does he ignore the central element of worship (2:3; cf. Eccl. 5:1–7; 12:1).

Qohelet elaborates on this principle of God’s common grace to humanity in several passages:

Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him—for this is his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. (Eccl. 5:18–20)

In fact, nothing can be better than for a man to eat, drink, and be glad in his work all the days of the life that God gives him (Eccl. 8:15; 9:7). So from the perspective of Qohelet, the experience of all these blessings comes as a gift from God. God in the manifestation of his grace gives food, drink, work, and the ability to enjoy all these things. He gives wisdom, knowledge, and happiness. He places eternity in the heart of man as his gift. He gives the ability for someone to enjoy his inheritance from God. He gives wealth, possessions, honor, and everything the heart desires. He gives a wife and the ability to enjoy life with her. He gives the human being a spirit, which ultimately returns to God. He is indeed the Giver of every good and perfect gift (Eccl.2:26; 3:11, 13; 5:18; 6:2; 8:15; 9:9; 12:7; cf. James 1:17).”

Read more

On November 25, 2016 By In Politics

Why St. Nick Can’t Save Santa

 

santa-c

In the first half of the fourth century, St. Nicholas of Myra punched the Trinity-denying Arius in the face. At least, that’s how the story goes (and how could every meme on my news feed be wrong?). Regardless of the historicity of the event, the motivation behind its re-telling is clear: the true meaning of Christmas has been watered down by elevating a make-believe, secular figure to the same level as Jesus. The King of Kings has to share the spotlight with Kris Kringle. St. Nicholas appears to offer some help. On the one hand, he offers a certain “Christian” flavor to the Santa myth. In the “war on Christmas,” the Christians have a secret weapon. We have a man behind enemy lines – hiding in plain, red-coated sight. Likewise, St. Nicholas grounds Santa in history. The complaint of Christian parents vis-à-vis Santa has long been: how can we say both Santa and Jesus are real without expecting our kids to doubt the later once they stop believing the former?

You can see the appeal of the St. Nick option. Historically, Jesus and St. Nicholas are both “real” in the same way King Edward IV and Teddy Roosevelt both occupied time and space. Spiritually, Jesus and St. Nicholas are both “faithful” in the same way Thomas Aquinas and John Bunyan were both Christian. Once Santa is established as historical, so goes the logic, we don’t have to worry about our kids believing in him today but becoming scorned Atheists tomorrow. Similarly, if Santa is a thorough, Trinitarian Christian, we don’t have to worry about hanging our sleigh ornament on a branch under the Bethlehem Star. Both point to Emmanuel in their own way. Now, at the risk of seeming like a Grinch, I just don’t think this reindeer will fly.

Sure, I’m sympathetic to the goals behind the St. Nick option, and I certainly want to give a brother in Christ his due for going fisticuffs with a heretic. But Santa can’t be helped, I believe, because the problem isn’t with our view of Santa in the first place. You see, the reason Christ gets overshadowed by Santa isn’t because we have a faulty view of Santa. It’s because we have a faulty view of God. Even a cursory scan of evangelicalism will show that we view angels as little more than elves and God as the ultimate Santa Claus: jolly, seasonal, and meritocratic. The St. Nick option assumes that Christ will take his rightful place at Christmas once Santa is brought down to the level of a historical saint. But the real solution won’t lie in bringing Santa down in our estimation, it will lie in exalting God. In order to have “more Christ in Christmas,” we need less sentimentality in Theology. That is, we must come to view God as He is: sovereign, holy, and merciful.nick

God isn’t seasonal, He’s sovereign. With the exception of an isle at Hobby Lobby, we by and large restrict Santa’s influence to a specific time of the year. We tend to do the same thing with God. However, the Scriptures are clear: It is incumbent upon the rulers of the earth (whether they rule a nation, a business, a family, or an apartment) to serve the Lord in all they do – to “kiss the Son,” as it were (Ps 2:12). The first step in putting Christ back in Christmas is to realize that God, unlike Santa, claims crown-rights over the whole of reality. He will not be relegated to a “season.” The sun never sets on His kingdom, and His reign has no end. Heaven is not the great North Pole in the sky – a distant land to which we occasionally write with gift requests. On the contrary, Heaven alludes to the rule of God. Heaven is the reality that will one day so thoroughly invade earth that there will be no need for the sun, because the Son will be its light. We don’t simply go to Heaven with our requests, Heaven comes to us with the commission to live out the rule of Christ in the here and now.

God isn’t jolly, He’s holy. Santa isn’t stern; he’s not abrasive. He’s rosy and fluffy and jolly. Of course, this isn’t by accident. The “Santa image” was designed by a committee of the The New York Historical Society with the explicit purpose of creating a warm, approachable, aesthetically-inviting image. We often talk about God as if He were the creation of a committee whose chief concern were our personal happiness. From what He does, to what He loves, to how He responds to sin – our thoughts about God are often more based on what want we’d like to be true than what is true. Yet, despite our most earnest wishes, God will not be re-made in our image. He’s holy – wholly different from His creation. He was not designed by a committee, but is eternally existent in three persons. If we are waiting to approach His throne until He changes His disposition to better suit our sensibilities – we’re waiting in vain. God doesn’t exist to make us comfortable. The gospel isn’t a marketing pitch, it’s a divine announcement.

God isn’t meritocratic, He’s merciful. The logic of Santa is clear: if you’ve been a good boy or girl, you get a treat. If you’ve been naughty, bam – it’s coal for you! You get what you merit. We use God in the same way; He’s a “naughty deterrent:” a means to the end of keeping people in line. However, God’s justice system is different than Santa’s. By His cross and resurrection, Christ has united His church to Himself – making every reward that’s rightfully His available to His beloved bride. What’s more, He took upon Himself the condemnation that was rightfully hers. His mercy isn’t simply the turning of a blind eye to naughtiness. No, Christ shares His Father’s lavish gifts precisely by taking our punishment upon His person. God sent His Son in the mineshaft only to collapse it – Jesus took all the coal there was to give. Mercifully, God only has presents to give his children.

Once we understand the real problem to be a folksy religiosity which brings God the Father down to the level of Father Christmas, we’ll see that Santa tebowing at a manger in the front yard isn’t the solution, it’s part of the problem. Until we’re able to banish such sappy thinking from our theology, until we come to see God as sovereign, holy, and merciful, St. Nicholas can offer little more than a Band-Aid to the wound. In fact, our baptism of Santa may only serve to codify and sanction the real problem. The “war on Christmas” isn’t being waged by the secular left who’s forgotten Santa’s true identity. It’s being waged by the inside, by a church who’s forgotten God’s true identity. St. Nicholas took a stand against the heresy of his day; he punched Arius. Fair enough. However, the boxing match of our day is in the ring of sentimentality, not Arianism. So, until Santa punches Norman Rockwell, I don’t think St. Nick can save Santa.

 

An earlier edition of this post appeared on The Gospel Coalition.

Read more

On November 22, 2016 By In Culture, Politics, Pro-Life

As I lay Dying: End of Life Ethics

hospital

A few days ago, Hugh Hewitt hosted a webinar with Rick Warren and Robert Barron on California’s assisted suicide law, and suicide laws generally. After dealing with the theological and ethical issues at play, Hugh interviews relevant legal experts; identifying appropriate “next steps” for those of us concerned with the sanctity of life. I can’t recommend the webinar highly enough.

There’s not a clear “Christian” way to vote on many things; those laws relating to assisted suicide—like those recently passed in California and Colorado—are not such things. That the End of Life Options Act passed by a 2 to 1 margin in the Centennial State is as grievesome as it is wicked.

My dad—a pastor and chaplain—taught me that our inability to see the dignity and humanity in people as they die says more about our callousness than it does about their direness. As always, legal renewal must be preceded by cultural renewal, which of course must be preceded by spiritual renewal.

In addition to the webinar, I’d recommend two other resources. First, check out Matthew Dickerson’s The Mind and the Machine: What it Means to be Human and why it Matters. While the book is not specifically about assisted suicide, the subtitle should be a clue as to its relevancy. Second, I would recommend picking up Harold OJ Brown’s Sensate Culture (published in ’96), specifically to reference his section on medical ethics. I’ll conclude with an excerpt from Brown:

“Hippocrates himself never spoke of ‘ending suffering’ but only of healing. If human life has no meaning beyond the pleasures and pains of bodily life, if there is nothing to look forward to after death, it is apparent that an excess of suffering will make living seem a burden to be thrown off as speedily as possible… One will reject this convenient solution only if one has ethical fixed stars, such as used to be provided by both the Christian faith and the Hippocratic tradition.

Medicine, like engineering or industrial production, is often considered a technique rather than a philosophy or worldview. In fact, however, medicine brings its practitioners into touch with a broach range of human existence; changes in the culture sooner or later must affect medicine, and changes in medicine cannot fail to affect the entire culture.”

 

Read more

On November 9, 2016 By In Politics

Ten Lessons from Trump’s Victory

Ten lessons from Trump’s victory tonight:

1) The messianic nature of Obama’s administration is over. He could not convert the nation. Barack Obama’s charisma did not translate into a national movement in favor of liberal policies neither did his campaigning on behalf of Hillary accomplish what Democrats expected. Further, the Bernie Sanders “revolution” was short-lived. Socialism is still as dangerous as it has always been.
2) Democrats underestimated the anger of the nation towards Washington D.C. Don’t trust the media. Don’t trust polls. This is the defeat of the elite.
3) Hillary was persecuted by her own e-mails throughout her entire campaign. Trump should send Comey and Weiner “Thank You” notes.
4) Liberals need to understand that the conservative/evangelical support for the pro-life cause is more than an emotional response, but a passionate conviction for the humanity and rights of the unborn. The third debate re-energized skeptical Republicans. Clinton’s late-term abortion defense is simply barbaric. The Supreme Court still matters.
5) As a Latino who entered this country legally and endured the lengthy process towards citizenship, I think the Democratic Party failed to understand why many of us favor the rule of law when it comes to legal immigration.
6) We are an entertainment-driven culture. We love the image of a conqueror, even if his victory comes at the expense of others. We need to repent of our greater love of mammon over morality.
7) Donald Trump needs an army of wise counselors. (more…)

Read more

On October 25, 2016 By In Politics

Proto-Neo-Calvinism: What hath Mercersburg to do with Amsterdam?

kuyp-nevin

Background

In 1844 the newly formed seminary of the German Reformed Church called Philip Schaff to be professor of Church history. After trekking from Berlin to Pennsylvania, Schaff promptly delivered the inaugural lecture for the semester. This lecture, later published with an introduction by Schaff’s colleague John Nevin as The Principle of Protestantism, encapsulated the Reformed, ecumenical, and sacramental emphasis, which came to be known as Mercersburg Theology. Half a century later another European theologian who, like Schaff, was heavily influenced by German Idealism landed on American soil to lecture on a theological system he had been developing in the Netherlands. In these addresses, later published as Lectures on Calvinism, Abraham Kuyper defended a Neo-Calvinistic worldview that was culturally all-encompassing. Christ’s redemption, argued Kuyper, was not limited to the so-called “sacred” or “spiritual” realms, but embraced art, politics, commerce and every sphere in which man is a participant.

To be sure, the legacies of Neo-Calvinism and Mercersburg are not equal in regards to size or influence. While the Dutch Reformed Church has flourished in Europe, South Africa, Canada, and America, Mercersburg theology has never reached more than a modest, albeit fervent, following. In addition to being smaller, the Mercersburg family tree looks very different from that of the Neo-Calvinists. The Mercersburg tree, shaped by more churchly conversations, grew in a more liturgical, ecumenical direction, while the Neo-Calvinist tree bent toward cultural engagement.

My argument is not that the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist families are arguing for the same thing only with a different vocabulary. The branches of both trees have reached too many and too far for such a hypothesis to be submitted let alone taken seriously. Rather, my argument is that while the trees do not share identity, they do share similarity. This similarity, far from being coincidental or contrived, I will argue is naturally and organically found in the writings of the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist founders. Indeed, it is my contention that the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist trees share similar roots and grew in the like soil of a decidedly non-puritanical reading of Calvin.

Thus, what follows is not an attempt to read Nevin as a Dutchman or Kuyper as an Antebellum Presbyterian. Rather, my aim is more modest and will come in three parts. First, I hope to show that both parties were reacting to the same problem; namely, the radical subjectivism produced by the Enlightenment. Second, in contrast to the modern strain of individualism, both parties sought to locate the nexus of ecclesial and epistemological authority squarely in the active, current reign of Jesus. Lastly, I will offer two ways in which both camps could be strengthened by a close reading of one anther’s texts. Such mutual appreciation, I will conclude, will assist both camp’s efforts of faithfulness and relevancy. (more…)

Read more

On October 17, 2016 By In Culture, Politics

Misadventures in American Evangelical Discipleship

politics

Guest post by Scott Cress:

The current campaign season has been brutal thus far. The American people have been treated to vitriolic personal attacks, countless conspiracy theories, and two major party candidates with questionable track records. Every word has been parsed by media, and every issue has been intensified by endless social media pontificating. The only people in the country who have anything to smile about right now are political science grad students, waking to a world of endless dissertation topics.

In the coming days, church leaders have some hard work to do as well. Challenges facing us include healing the wounds in sharply divided churches and finding new ways of engaging the public square. The last few days have, however, brought to my mind one issue above all others: the current state of American evangelical discipleship.

We have watched once admired leaders engage in hypocritical power-grabbing, willing to tarnish their legacy just so evangelicals have some foothold in the White House. Maybe more frightening than this, many sincere brothers and sisters have demonstrated an anemic moral reasoning which allows them to ignore language and actions clearly condemned by Scripture. “SCOTUS is all that matters right now,” they say. “And have you seen the other person?” they add with a touch of moral indignation. These latest remarks are one more stream feeding a growing river of American evangelical resistance to criticism (think of the recent conversations involving race) and fear of appearing “liberal” on almost any issue.

Of course, I write these words as a minister of the gospel who is himself flawed. Even as I read social media comments and mourn our present condition, I am reminded of my own persistent oversights and shortcomings. I mourn over the continual ways in which my behaviors, attitudes, and thoughts are out of step with the way of Jesus. I think of the state of my own discipleship, and I question my fitness to lead the church in these challenging days.

To be certain, discipleship has been occurring in our churches. Yet the current models have been found wanting. In particular the typical pathway of American evangelical discipleship has included the following elements:

  • A basic knowledge that we are somehow forgiven by God through Jesus
  • Short Scripture readings chosen for “comfort” and “encouragement”
  • A near obsessive focus on marriage and parenting
  • Constant reminders that God is with us in our struggles
  • A working knowledge of the “Christian position” on a few social issues
  • A variety of teachings on “hearing” God’s voice

The end results have been people who know God’s forgiveness but are shaky on God’s commands. A people who love God’s encouragement but don’t quite know what to do with God’s warnings. A people who want to succeed in life (with money or marriage) but still somehow follow a guy who was crucified. A people who have tried to live the Christian life in largely individualistic terms on a diet of disconnected verses. Hence, the focus on “hearing” God’s voice – not on hearing God’s Word in Scripture proclaimed to God’s people.

Many of us have been aware of the problem of malnourished disciples for too long. Answers have been proposed. Some have suggested that we ditch the judgment and focus on inclusivity. Others have found the answer in a life of miracles and immediate divine revelation. Another group has turned to renewed Christian intellectualism to supply our needs. In many instances, the answers to the problem have proven as troublesome as the problem itself.

In these difficult days, what are church leaders concerned with the ongoing growth of God’s people to do? There are simply no curriculums or social scientific studies which will solve our problem. In fact, the answers seem to this observer to be remarkably unremarkable. As November comes and goes, I am re-committing myself to three tasks.

  1. Immerse God’s people in the reading of Scripture. – God’s people need God’s Word. It needs to be read individually, memorized, and, most critically, read and heard together in our congregations. We need more than disconnected thoughts. We need lengthy pericopes, whole chapters, Old and New Testament working together. God’s people need to wake with David. Commute to work in the company of the Exodus community. And worship God together in the words of the Psalter. Memorization is key. We need God’s Word to make its way down into our long-term memory so that it can be deployed in the course of day-to-day living. We need to memorize more than single verses but, instead, whole chapters and strings of verses addressing the same theme. We need to feast not only on a few biblical words but on whole patterns of biblical thought. And if we find that we are crunched for time, we need to be prepared to ditch the single-verse devotionals and the many books on Christian living. We can no longer afford to raise up people who know how to set boundaries but don’t know how God’s covenants develop throughout the Bible or the differences between Matthew and Mark. These resources are not bad; they are simply inadequate for our present need.
  2. Teach God’s people biblical theology. – Even as God’s Word is read, heard, and memorized, church leaders must recommit themselves to teaching the overarching narrative of Scripture. We must develop the relationships between different portions of the Bible. In our thematic studies, we must collect relevant material from a story which begins with creation, experiences the horrific consequences of the fall, tastes the glory of redemption, and culminates with the restoration of all things. Our people don’t need bits and pieces of Scripture to provide comfort in crisis. Our people need deep and sturdy understandings of biblical ideas, strong enough to sort through the bewildering landscape of modern life. Many of our heroes in the faith have led their people through verse-by-verse expository study. This approach has borne fruit, but I doubt that it currently addresses the needs of people without a significant biblical-theological framework. Every teaching time is an opportunity to reinforce the grand sweep of the narrative and to point to the redemptive work of Jesus. To be sure, not every sermon will be the same. We simply cannot miss the opportunity to teach the all-encompassing nature of the Scriptural portrait of reality.
  3. Provoke the moral imagination of God’s people. – God’s people don’t need their church leaders to feed them the answers to today’s difficult questions. The results of this approach are all around us. Approaching ethics top-down has led to imbalance in our witness to the world. For example, we are often capable of crying out against the abortion industry but incapable of addressing real and persistent racism in our communities. We compromise on some issues and justify the compromise on the basis of another issue. This has also given birth to a subtle yet insidious legalism which leaves us suspecting the salvation of anyone who speaks out of step with us on our prized ethical (and often political) issues. How can we forge a better way? We start by following the path of the first task above. God’s people – and the leaders of that people – need to be exposed to the wide range of imperative content in the Bible. The Bible has much to say about the distortion of God’s will in all areas of life – including the economic, the political, the personal, and the sexual. We need all of this material. Moreover, application in our sermons and teaching times should be designed to suggest the multitude of ways in which the Bible gets under our skin and opens up new pathways for our present walk. Don’t tell people what to do. Show them the possibilities of a life lived under God’s rule. Church history has a crucial role to play at this point. Studying the history of the Holy Spirit at work in the church shows us how the Bible has formed and shaped our mothers and fathers in the faith. What did the Bible mean for the early modern city of Geneva? How did the African slave community appropriate the story of the Exodus? How have Christians from other eras persevered in strange political environments? I would advise congregations to consider using Sunday school time or small group meetings to engage in these types of historical study. It might even help to hire a historian-in-residence, equipped to bring case studies before the eyes and minds of God’s saints.

Much more could be said and needs to be said concerning the future of American evangelical discipleship. These brief thoughts have not touched on the necessary subjects of prayer, sacraments, or evangelism. But one last thing must be mentioned. These goals are attainable. We do not need large congregations, big budgets, or advanced degrees to begin digging into the world of corporate Scripture reading and imaginative moral thinking. We do, of course, need willing hearts and ready hands; yet the possibilities lie no further than the Bible on our shelves and the people in our homes. Real ministry and real discipleship do not begin with professional musicians and bounce houses. Those things are great, but they are not the stuff of discipleship. So here’s to the future of American evangelical discipleship – far beyond the dark and troubling days of early November.

 

Scott Cress is Associate Pastor of Faith Presbyterian Church (EPC) in West Lafayette, IN. In addition to his pastoral work, he serves as a business chaplain and part-time lecturer with Purdue Polytechnic Institute. He is married to Shana, with whom he is raising up two little disciples of Jesus.

Read more

On August 20, 2016 By In Politics

A bloody right ear

In Luke 22, one of Jesus’ disciples (identified in John’s Gospel as Peter) attempts to defend Jesus from arrest by striking the High Priest’s servant with his sword, cutting off his right ear. Jesus rebukes his wayward disciple, and promptly stretches out his hand to heal the servant’s ear.

A remarkable display of healing grace? A typically Christlike display of love for enemies.

Yes, indeed. And yet so much more.

(more…)

Read more

On August 5, 2016 By In Politics

Philosophy and Faith for Incoming Freshmen

In the next few weeks, colleges across the country will commence their Fall semester. Many students who grew up in Christian homes will consciously trade in their faith for a philosophical system antithetical to the one of their upbringing. Even more students, however, while not outright denying their Christian faith, will unconsciously adopt a philosophical system that is inherently idolatrous. It’s not that this second group wants to be idolaters; they simply lack the tools to discern the nature of the bill of goods their professor is selling them.

So, how can one know if a given philosophical system (Kantianism, Marxism, Platonism, etc.) is idolatrous? One can begin by asking two questions. First, “is this logical?” Second, “is this sinful?” If the answer is “yes” to the first question, the answer will be “no” to the second question. If the answer is “no” to the first question, the answer will be “yes” to the second question. Here’s a story to illustrate the point:

On her twenty first birthday, Cindy was promised a night on the town with her girlfriends. After dinner, her friends came to her house in a limo, blindfolded her, and took her to Crazy Dave’s Casino (obviously, she had some pretty lame friends…). As they were getting into the limo, they shoved some bills in her purse and said “tonight’s on us!” Once inside, Cindy took off her blindfold. Because there was no signage on the inside of the building, Cindy still wasn’t sure where she was. Eventually, she saw a waitress and asked if she could get something to drink. As she pulled out her wallet to pay, she saw four hundred Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks in her purse.

Now, there are only two ways that Cindy could have deduced her location. First, she could have spotted a logo. While it’s true the big Crazy Dave’s sign was outside, there were actually logo’s on the slot machines, napkins, etc. Secondly, of course, she could’ve known by looking at the Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks. Her currency could’ve revealed to her the location. Likewise, her location could have told her what sort of currency her friends slipped into her purse. For Cindy to answer the question “am I at Casino Dave’s?” she’d have to look at her currency. For her to answer the question “what sort of currency do I have in my purse?” she’d have to look at the signage.

Back to our original question: how can one know if a given philosophical system is idolatrous? There are at least two ways: Firstly, you can look for signage. Here, you’re trying to determine if the system outrightly advertises itself as sinful. Put simply, this means asking a couple questions of the philosophical system. One question is, “does it enable me to do something God forbids?” Nihilism, for instance, enables one to tear down systems for “tearing’s” sake. Well, some systems need to be torn down, but we’re commanded to obey God’s rule. Any tearing, then, must not be for its own sake, but because we’re seeking a system patterned after the rule of God.

Thus, we know Nihilism is idolatrous because it enables us to do something God forbids.  Another question to ask is, “does the system forbid me from doing something God commands?”  Animism, for instance, is idolatrous because it teaches that everything on the earth, indeed the earth itself, has a soul. Thus, I’m forbidden from, among other things, giving thanks to God. If “Mother Nature” is giving me food, my thanksgiving is directed to the object I’m eating rather than the One who gave me the object to eat. Like Cindy, you’re in a building (the Casino of Idolatry, if you will), and you’re looking for clues as to the nature of the structure.

Secondly, you can look at the currency in which the philosophical system deals. This is crucial because not all philosophical systems are easily detected as “sinful.” Like Cindy in the casino, there isn’t a big Crazy Dave’s sign, and the logos are quite small and inconspicuous. Thus, it won’t do to simply ask “am I in the Casino of Idolatry?” Rather, you’ll have to ask “am I using the currency of the Casino of Idolatry?”

Well, what is the currency of idolatry? In a word, it’s illogicality. If the system is illogical, it is idolatrous. Idolatry is always making a deal in which you trade life for death; the family blessing for some soup. An idolatrous philosophical system never uses the currency of “logic.” Thus, one can ask the question, “Are the propositions which this philosophy proposes logical?” If the answer is “no!” then you can know the system is itself idolatrous. With a little deductive reasoning, one can find idolatry in any illogical statement. Likewise, one can find incoherence in any given expression of idolatry.

Take, for example, the illogicality of Kantianism. In his book on logic (a wonderful resource for any incoming freshman!), Vern Poythress shows how the system is self-defeating (i.e. illogical):

“Kantianism uses reason to build a system that sets the limits of reason. To do so, it has to survey the field. It has to transcend the phenomenal and look at the noumenal realm as well. It has to take a God’s-eye view. This view, once achieved, afterwards allows it to tell you and me the narrower limits in which our reason can safely operate. The God’s-eye view is Kantianism’s secret, and simultaneously its weakest point. Kantianism is self-destructive. In its results, it tells us what are the limitations of reason. If we take those results seriously, we have to apply them to Kantianism’s own reasonings about philosophy. Those reasonings go beyond the limits, and so we conclude that they are not sound.”

Faith is not antithetical to critical reasoning. In fact, faith offers the freshman the tools by which she can fully engage the whole of reality, physical and metaphysical. Or, to stick with our illustration, the biblical faith offers a currency backed by the Creator of the whole world. Thus, spendable not only in “religion class” but in philosophy, art history, economics, and science. Go, then, freshman: study with confidence! Indeed, study in faith.

Read more