On July 13th, California shut down churches, hair salons and other places of commerce in at least 32 counties. Early on Gov. Newsom banned singing as a way to curb the spread of the coronavirus. We should add that this shut down is indefinite, which means government officials do not want to play the prophetic role. After all, the virus is spreading, people are dying, and the only reasonable solution is to shut down pubs and ecclesiastical gatherings. In their minds, there is no distinction between a beer and the Eucharistic wine.

Whether one thinks the governor is singling out churches is not the point. The point is that in restricting public gatherings on the Lord’s Day indefinitely Newsom has now entered into a zone of warfare with God and his saints.

Throughout this entire process, I have heard well-intentioned Christians who give the impression to have never read a single commentary on Romans 13, or whose commitment to worship itself is highly suspicious, throw out single verses as an attempt to cause radical dismay upon any who would dare not concur. But by now, arguments to obey government authorities indefinitely have gone straight down Dante’s Inferno where they belong.

One surprising feature in this entire process is the recent position taken by Grace Community Church in California, the home of over 10,000 members pastored by the prolific pastor, John MacArthur. Grace Community shut down in the early days for reasons I found unhelpful, but still understandable. Well, no more! MacArthur penned a powerful letter in response to the Newsom mandate. In it, he noted that “We, the pastors and elders of Grace Community Church, respectfully inform our civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction, and faithfulness to Christ prohibits us from observing the restrictions they want to impose on our corporate worship services.” And further, with great objectivity, he writes, “The biblical order is clear: Christ is Lord over Caesar, not vice versa. Christ, not Caesar, is head of the church…these are distinct kingdoms, and Christ is sovereign over both.”

There will be a lot of interesting follow-ups given MacArthur’s eschatological disposition and his history of escapist statements in the last 40 years. But suffice to say, as Joe Boot noted, MacArthur has expressed the basic Kuyperian vision we have advocated since the beginning. It’s the “indefinite” part that changes the trajectory of the conversation. The Gospels tell us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church which means that shutting down church indefinitely is to open up ourselves to delivish attacks when we should be as the men of Nehemiah working with one hand and carrying a sword with the other (Neh. 4:17) ready to attack hell’s emissaries. This is not the time to retreat! Our children one day will ask us how we acted during this season. I want to boldly look at them in the eyes and say, “We did not give an inch to Satan’s domain!” As MacArthur rightly concluded, “How can the true church of Jesus Christ distinguish herself in such a hostile climate? There is only one way: bold allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Read more

THE CONFLICT

There is an ongoing conflict between Biblical studies and philosophical theology. N.T. Wright sums it up this way in his essay “Historical Paul and Systematic Theology”:

“In a famous conversation between Paul Tillich and C. H. Dodd at Union Seminary in New York, Tillich basically said that there was no point twiddling his thumbs waiting for some nugget of useful exegesis to emerge from the lexical and text-critical work going on down the hall. This negative comment has frequently been reciprocated, as biblical scholars see theologians who not only claim to be ‘biblical’ but write books about the authority of scripture making more or less no use of the Bible itself in their deliberations. In some quarters, biblical scholars explicitly reject ‘theological’ proposals, as though they were bound to corrupt the pure historical study of the text. If there is supposed to be a marriage of biblical studies and theology, then as Paul says about marriage in Ephesians 5 – but in a different sense – it is a great mystery.”

Alastair Roberts gives a similar assessment in his contribution to a recent book on classical theism:

“A preoccupation with God as He is in Himself, when proceeding in detachment from the revelation and action of God in history, is always in danger of distorting the character of Christian faith, replacing the intensely historical and relational realities of the scriptural text with doctrinal abstractions… [Dogmatic theology] faces the insistent temptation to reduce the Scripture to the handmaiden of its own authority, or the raw material for its own conceptual edifices. The dogmatician is in danger of approaching Scripture as if it were a mirror for his theological self-regard, within which to seek the confirming reflection of his doctrine (a posture most commonly seen in proof-texting approaches)…” – Alastair Roberts¹

I find myself in the middle of this debate. As a scholar of languages and antiquity who cut his teeth on the puzzling Greek of the Presocratics, I am often frustrated by what passes for exegesis among Christian theologians. On the other hand, as a minister in a church committed to classical Anglicanism, and subscribing to the 39 Articles of Religion, I assent to the statement that God is “without body, parts, or passions” (Article I.1) – but then I find myself compelled to hedge and qualify this statement in order to remain faithful to the Biblical text.² I count myself among the heirs of John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and the English Reformers, who all held to classical theism. I have no desire to overthrow this system. At the same time, I find the exegetical foundation for the doctrines of classical theism terribly lacking. My interactions with writers for the Davenant Institute have shown that they are aware of the problem.^2.1 They feel the need for a solid exegetical grounding for the doctrines of classical theism of which they are some of the most prominent defenders. So this essay is an attempt from a sympathetic, but critical, onlooker to state the ways in which the current exegetical defenses of some of the more contentious doctrines of classical theism fall short.

Read more