Horton on Evangelical Ecclesiologies

Earlier, I posted a blurb from Mike Horton on Volf and Grenz, specifically discussing Free-Church ecclesiology.  Volf had a penetrating critique which Horton draws upon and expands from the Reformation point of view in People and Place.  By way of reminder, Volf (himself within the Free Church tradition), criticized Free Church ecclesiology for giving into the spirit of the age – consumerism and personal choice.

Also by way of reminder, Grenz’s ana/baptistic congregational ecclesiology is summarized this way (in his own words): “The true church is essentially people standing in voluntary covenant with God.”  Grenz also writes, “Because the coming together of believers in mutual covenant constitutes the church, it is the covenant community of individuals.”  In other words, individuals form the church rather than vice versa (p. 177).

Here are a few of Horton’s repsonses.

“…The Reformed confessions defined the visible church as believers together with their children.  Yet even this violates the rule that is basic to congregational polity: a voluntary covenant, which not only entails the independence of local churches but also the independence of invidivuals within them until they mutually agree on the terms of that relationship” (p. 177).

Drawing on Bonhoeffer (”Only a community [Gemeinschaft], not a society [Gesellschaft], is able to carry children”), Horton writes:

“Infant baptism, therefore, is not incidental but essential for a covenant ecclesiology.  It is integral not only to the continuity of the covenant through Old and New Testaments, but also to a conception of the church as the place where faith is born and fed as well as the people who exhibit it.  The inclusion of believers’ children underscores the priority of God’s sovereign grace in ecclesiology as well as soteriology, challenging all voluntaristic and contractual interpretations that contribute to an individualistic faith and practice.  When construed in the context of a covenantal theology, the baptism of believers together with their children underscores 1) the priority of divine activity in creating the church (i.e., covenant over contract); 2) the ‘mixed’ character of the body of Christ at present, which subverts overrealized eschatologies; 3) the importance of personal faith as well as communal mediation in the nuture of faith and repentance” (p. 186).

I realize some of our readers may disagree; yet I think it is essential – as Horton notes – to see that and how the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) affects or carries through to our doctrine of the church (ecclesiology), and vice versa.  Both go together, of course, if there is consistency.  The Reformers worked hard to balance church as place (institution) and church as people (organism); covenant theology was the balancing biblical factor.  Of course this has to do with Arminianism and Calvinism as well, which I’ll leave you to ponder when it comes to soteriology, ecclesiology, and covenant theology.  Read Horton’s stuff again!

Quotes taken from People and Place (Louisville: WJK, 2008).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Calvinism in African-American History

Lemuel Haynes (d. 1833) stands out in the African-American Christian tradition as a powerful gospel preacher in the 19th century.  He was sort of adopted as a very young child by solid Calvinist Congregationalists in Massachusetts.  He was schooled a bit and self-taught for the most part.  He served in the Continental Army until he became quite ill in 1776.  To make a long post shorter, he began to teach the Scriptures to his friends and family and they realized he had a gift of preaching the gospel. The rest is church history, so to speak: “He was licensed to preach November 29, 1780, and five years later became the first African-American ordained by any religious body in America,” writes Thabiti Anyabwile in the book he edited on Haynes (May We Meet in the Heavenly World [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009], 6).  Furthermore, he was awarded an honorary master’s degree by Middlebury College in 1084, another first for an African-American.

Here’s a great window into the piety of Hanyes.  On his tombstone is written (by his wish): “Here lies the dust of a poor hell-deserving sinner, who ventured into eternity trusting wholly on the merits of Christ for salvation.  In the full belief of the great doctrines he preached while on earth, he invites his children, and all who reads this, to trust their eternal interest on the same foundation” (19).

Many thanks go out to Reformation Heritage Books and Thabiti Anyabwile for this great little jewel.  It not only contains a bio, but also a few excerpts from Haynes’ pen.  May We Meet in the Heavenly World is part of the series, “Profiles in Reformed Spirituality” that RHB is in the middle of publishing (note: I posted on the John Calvin profile here).

One more note: RHB has Turretin’s Institutes on sale for 80.00!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Faith, Doubt, & Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Newbigin)

This is an amazing and truly outstanding book.  Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) is honestly one of the best brief and to the point books I’ve read on Christian epistemology (i.e. knowing things – specifically how faith and knowledge relate).  I would love to do a series of blog posts on this book, but I don’t have the time right now.  Instead, I’ll blurb a bit now, and come back to it later.

In this book, Newbigin talks about modernism & fundamentalism along with postmodernism & liberalism.  He wonderfully describes them, critiques them, points out the strengths of each, but then says neither will ultimately do for a Christian pilgrim “on the way.”  In fact, says Newbigin, our knowledge is “partial here in via, but promised in its fullness at the end” (p. 7).  We cannot assume a sort of enlightenment or even fundamentalistic view of knowledge, that we know so much based on scientific, reasonable propositions.  Nor can we assume a sort of liberal or postmodern view that nothing can be known with any certainty.  Instead,

“If the place where we look for ultimate truth is in a story and if (as is the case) we are still in the middle of the story, then it follows that we walk by faith and not by sight.  If ultimate truth is sought in an idea, a formula, or a set of timeless laws or principles, then we do not have to recognize the possibility that something totally unexpected may happen.  Insofar as our knowledge is accurate, we shall be able to predict the future.  Future and past events are governed by the same laws, the same principles, and the same realities.  But if we find ultimate truth in a story that has not yet been finished, we do not have that kind of certainty.  The certainty we have rests on the faithfulness of the one whose story it is.  We walk by faith” (p. 14)

Again, I’ll come back to this book some other time.  If you want a lesson in epistemology, especially how to think and act when it comes to liberalism and fundamentalism or postmodernism and modernism, reason and faith, and so forth, you really have to get this book.

A few more reading tips: First, Newbigin appropriates Polayni well in this book.  Second, this adds a new “robustness” to Van Til’s presuppositional arguments.  Finally, I assure you that if you read this book of Newbigin along with Herman Bavinck’s Certainty of Faith, you will not only be edified, your faith will also be strengthened, and you’ll have a great set of lenses with which to read and view the Christian faith in light of science, doubt, and skepticism.   Both books are around 100 pages and probably easy enough for anyone who knows the basic outlines of the history of philosophy.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Brief Study of the Ten Commandments

“Far too many people look at the Law apart from Christ.  They go from the Ten Commandments straight to its application to life, never asking the question: What about Christ?  That inevitably leads to legalism, or the belief that we are able to fulfill the law.”  So writes John Fesko in the introduction to his new little booklet, The Rule of Love: Broken, Fulfilled, and Applied (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009).  He concludes his brief intro by explaining the proper way to read, study, and apply the Ten Commandments: by considering the historical, covenantal, and redemptive context of the law.  That is the basic paradigm for the entire book – his discussion on each individual commandment.

The book is helpful because it is clear and concise.  Fesko explains the historical setting of each commandment, how Christ fulfilled it, and how it applies to us as Christians, those in Christ.  Each chapter is only around 10 pages long and concludes with a few study questions.  This is a smaller hardcover book for the average parishioner.  As I read it, I was thinking how it would be a great Bible study book (for a short study), a great book to give to friends just coming into the Christian faith, and a good little reference for sermons/studies on the Ten Commandments.   Again, it is not a scholarly resource with footnotes and extensive quotes; it is a basic and clear Reformational treatment of the Law – as a tutor to drive us to Christ and as a guide to Christian gratitude.

I’ll post a little more on this at a later date.  For more info, check it out at the publisher’s site (here).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Pastor and the Church: Abraham Kuyper

I just finished Our Worship (Onze Eredienst; 1911) [ed.  Harry Boonstra, trans. Boonstra, et. al (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)] by Abraham Kuyper.  The book is a series of published articles on public worship and liturgy which Kuyper penned around the turn of the 20th century in a Dutch Reformed  “magazine,” De Heraut.  The topics include liturgy, the assembly, the meeting, the prayers, song, preaching, elders, deacons, and so forth – 316 pages of such discussion.

I enjoyed the first chapters quite a bit.  Here’s a golden section from the first chapter, “Revival of Liturgical Awareness.”

“In a genuine church…the gathering of believers” originates in “a historical past that goes back all the way to Pentecost in Jerusalem.  Such a church is rooted in a past of eighteen centuries, in which a temporary minister serves for only a set number of years to accomplish his holy service, and then that same service continues under the ministry of his successor.  That means that it is not the minister who created the church, but that the church existed long before him.  He was born in the church, he served in it, and therefore had to honor the traditions that developed within the church over the centuries.” (p. 7; emphasis mine).

That’s great: Kuyper is reacting to the “free-reining spirit” common in America (yes, even back in c. 1900) where a minister starts his own church, gets some followers and goes from there.  Kuyper said that such a conglomeration is “nothing other than a circle gathering around a talented speaker” (Ibid.).  Kuyper’s response is classic: the minister is a very tiny part of a much greater thing.  He does not have the liberty to do what he wants with the church.  He’s an important servant in some sense, but he must remember that the church existed before him and will be there long after his tongue no longer speaks.  He’s a tool in the hands of Christ, used for a time to build something much more significant than himself: the body of Christ.   This is a great note for me as a pastor to remember: “The church has authority over the minister and not the minister over the church” (Ibid., 6).

The minister serves Christ and his church – not the other way around.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Another New One On Calvin

In light of the 500th anniversary of John Calvin’s birthday, a host of all things Calvin is hitting the bookstores, blogs, and even other media.  Here’s another new compilation on Calvin, edited by Burk Parsons – John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2009).  Nineteen pastors/teachers contributed, from Joel Beeke to Sinclair Ferguson to Thabiti Anyabwile to Phillip Johnson to Derek Thomas to Jerry Bridges.

The chapters include topics such as Calvin’s humility, life, and devotion; his role as churchman, reformer, writer, preacher; Calvin’s teaching on redemption, election, reprobation, union with Christ, justification, and so forth.  A great many topics are covered.

I’m not going to actually quote the book a bunch here. I simply want to flag the book for those interested.  In my opinion, the book is a great one to give to those Christians who 1) are leery of Calvin, 2) have heard of Calvin but never read anything about him, or 3) know a little of Calvin’s teaching and want to learn more.  This book is probably too much an introduction to Calvin and his thought for it to be overly useful to those of us who have read the Institutes or parts of his Commentaries.

One small quibble I have with the book is that some contributors didn’t really seem to get “into” Calvin’s thought.  For one example, Jerry Bridges wrote about holiness, and he only quoted from a tiny section of the Institutes (sometimes known as “The Little Golden Book”) but left out some other huge Calvin emphases that came to mind.  Joel Beeke’s chapter, “The Communion of Men With God” followed Bridges; it certainly “breathed” Calvin.  These two chapters sort of display the diversity of contributors.  Another chapter that didn’t “breathe” Calvin was John MacArthur’s chapter, “Man’s Radical Corruption,” (a.k.a. Total Depravity) which he said was one of Calvin’s “most important legacies” along with a few other points (p 138).  True enough, but this is sort of a reduction of all of Calvin’s thought down to several “points.”  In summary, some chapters are solid reading, others are somewhat superficial.

I realize an author and a book can only do so much.  And I realize the benefits of having Christians of all traditions say that Calvin is good and helpful.  Again, this is a good introductory level book for Calvin’s thought and life in simple language, but you may not need or want it if you’ve already read some things on Calvin.

For those of you who want more than a broad introduction, see this Beeke book or this one by Godfrey – both of which are also introductions to Calvin.  These are two men (among others I know) who have read and studied the Calvin “autographa” for years, and who are Calvinistic from head to toe.  These two books (among others) may just serve a better purpose than the one I’m reviewing here.

Finally, if you want a scholarly book on Calvin, check out Richard Muller’s, The Unaccommodated Calvin. I’m guessing most of our readers who have been “reading us” awhile are probably able to dig into the Institutes themselves.  Start there, and patiently read.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Gilead: On the Lighter Side

A parishioner told me that I need to read more than theology.  I do, but her point was well taken, so I’m reading the book she loaned me: Gilead by Marilynne Robinson (New York: Picador, 2004).  The story is about an elderly Congregationalist minister who – in a very creative and lyrical way – is recounting his life (including the 25 feet tall stack of 40 years of sermons in the attic that he just can’t forget about).  Here’s one little blurb.

After lamenting his age, Reverend Ames (the one writing the story) says he wanted to recount the old days by doing a little waltz in his study (sort of a way to defy his age, or fight it).

“I have thought I might have a book ready at hand to clutch if I begin to experience unusual pain, so that it would have an especial recommendation from being found in my hands.  That seemed theatrical, on consideration, and it might have the perverse effect of burdening the book with unpleasant associations.  The ones I considered, by the way, were Donne and Herbert and Barth’s Epistle to the Romans and Volume II of Calvin’s Institutes.  Which is by no means to slight Volume I” (p. 115).

The book is a flowing narrative, so it is good for the sake of story (it won a Pulitzer Prize).  There are some great episodes in it as well.  The oddest thing for me, however, apart from the gun-totin’ abolitionist preacher is that the book doesn’t have chapters!  Still, go get it if you want a light-hearted enjoyable read.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Final Judgment for the Justified According to Works?

Not the way some would have you think.  Cornelis Venema writes:

If the confessions of the Reformation clearly speak of justification as a once-for-all act of God, which does not comport with a final justification according to works, this still leaves open the question regarding the way they handle the final judgment and the obvious role that works play in this judgment.  How do they treat the subject of the role of good works in the context of the final judgment?

To answer this question, it is significant to observe that the confessions of the Reformation clearly affirm the reality of a final judgment according to works.  They also openly acknowledge that the good works of believers are genuine works that please God and are accordingly rewarded by him.  However, they are careful to note that the good works God rewards in this context have at least three important characteristics.

First, they are not the kinds of works that could ever justly deserve the verdict of free justification.  Such works could never be ‘the whole or part of our righteousness before God’, according to the Heidelberg Catechism:

Because the righteousness which can stand before the tribunal of God must be absolutely perfect and wholly conformable to the divine law, while even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin (Q. & A. 62; cf. Rom. 3:9, 20; 10:5; 7:23; Ga. 3:10; 5:3; Deut. 27:6, Lev. 18:5).

Second, the good works of believers are themselves the fruits of God’s sanctifying grace at work in the hearts and lives of his people.  They are those good works that God prepared beforehand for believers (Eph. 2:10).

And third, the works of believers are only ‘good’ in so far as they proceed from faith, the same faith that finds no other basis for acceptance with God than that provided by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  Good works are the inescapable fruits of a true and living faith; though faith alone – ‘before we do good works’ – is the exclusive instrument whereby believers receive the free gift of justification (Matt. 7:18; John 15:5; James 2:18, 22).

The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, pgs. 262-63. (Bold emphasis mine.)

This is very much in the spirit of Belgic Confession, Article 37 which states that the final judgment “is very pleasant and a great comfort to the righteous and elect, since their total redemption will then be accomplished.”

_________________
Andrew

Joel’s Locusts as Babylon and/or Assyria

Well, turns out I’m not the first person who thought that the locust plague of Joel 1 might actually refer to an invading army.  Not only did I find Sweeney making a similar connection in his commentary, I found this quote from the Syriac father, Isho’dad of Merv (9th century AD):

The mashota (”cutting locust”) is similar to a larva.  It is black and longer than a larva; when it falls to the ground, it does not destroy completely the plant but devours just the leaves and does not touch the rest.  Through it the prophet signifies Tiglath-pileser, because the troubles that he caused to the people of Israel were mild.  Her calls Shalmaneser the flying locust, because the destruction that he caused was more serious than than by Tiglath-pileser.  He calls zahla the crawling locust, which does not fly and feeds on everything.  He signifies through it Sennacherib, because he surpasses his predecessor in the ruin caused and brings about the annihilation of the ten tribes.  The sarsoura creeps on the ground and is only equipped with a string; when it strikes the roots of a tree, any tree it finds, it immediately withers.  And he signifies through it Nebuchadnezzar, the cause of total destruction.  He calls vines the common people, fig trees the important persons, whom that Assyrians and Babylonians deported in captivity.

Isho’dad of Merv, cited in Ferrerio and Oden, eds., The Twelve Prophets, vol. 14 of The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 60.

While his detail is a bit fanciful, it is interesting nonetheless that this ancient father also thought that the locusts may simply be a metaphor for the destruction caused by the Assyrian or Babylonian war machine.

_______________
Andrew

Joel, Chs. 1-2: “Locusts and Invaders” or “Invaders who are like Locusts”

I’ve been intrigued with the Twelve Prophets lately.  Not only are they fascinating books on their own, the grouping, editing and redacting of the whole corpus into one book (already by the time of Ben Sira) is an incredible example of inner-biblical interpretation.  These books originally written for very diverse purposes have been grouped and edited for use in new and creative ways by later authors, creating a pristine example of what Wolterstorff calls “double-agency discourse” (See pgs. 213-15 in Goldsworthy).

In my most recent reading of the book of Joel, I was struck by the depiction of the “locust plague” in a way I had not been before.  After spending some time this past quarter talking about MB/LB Egyptian military involvement in the Levant, the behavior of the “locusts” in Joel 1 suddenly sounded more like a campaigning army than simply a entomological phenomenon.  Listen to a few verses:

Joel 1.4 What the cutting locust left, the swarming locust has eaten. What the swarming locust left, the hopping locust has eaten, and what the hopping locust left, the destroying locust has eaten.  5 Awake, you drunkards, and weep, and wail, all you drinkers of wine, because of the sweet wine, for it is cut off from your mouth. (Note: all verses from the ESV for this post)

In the ancient world, the army couldn’t radio for a C-17 to do a fly over and drop food supplies for the army when needed.  What couldn’t be packed, the army made up for by pillaging and ravaging whatever farmland was near their campaign route.  In fact, some have argued that Egyptian involvement in the southern Levant during the Amarna period can be attributed to military tactics; by being the overlord of a number of city states, a campaigning army can more easily get food (supplied by the city state kings) during the first leg of a journey up into Syria.

That these “locusts” have cut off the wine and oil (staples in the ancient diet) may not simply be a coincidence, but an effort to feed an army.  In fact, Joel goes on:

1.6 For a nation has come up against my land, powerful and beyond number; its teeth are lions’ teeth and it has the fangs of a lioness.  7 It has laid waste my vine and splintered my fig tree; it has stripped off their bark and thrown it down; their branches are made white.

10 The fields are destroyed, the ground mourns, because the grain is destroyed, the wine dries up, the oil languishes.

In chapter 2, the description of the invading army becomes more explicit:

2.3 Fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns.  The land is like the garden of Eden before them, but behind them a desolate wilderness, and nothing escapes them.

5 As with the rumbling of chariots, they leap on the tops of the mountains, like the crackling of a flame of fire devouring the stubble, like a powerful army drawn up for battle.

This next line makes me think of the Assyrian war machine with its expertise in siege tactics (take a look at some pictures of the Assyrian siege ramp at Lachish for an example):

2.7 Like warriors they charge; like soldiers they scale the wall.  They march each on his way; they do not swerve from their paths.

9 They leap upon the city, they run upon the walls, they climb up into the houses, they enter through the windows like a thief.

I do not think that it is coincidental to find that the description of the locust plague also fits that of the army and vice versa.  We seem to have in Joel 1-2 a text about an approaching army, one known for their siege and blockade tactics as seen in their “wall climbing” ability and their decision to leave the fields in ruin; not only to feed their own army, but to starve out the enemy (Jerusalem in this case as temple ritual is the focal point).

Who is this army?  Perhaps we’ve been reading a bit too much into the “day of the Lord” language by assuming that it is an eschatological, end-times supernatural army.  (See Marvin Sweeney’s treatment in his commentary on the Twelve.)  In fact, we get an idea as to the very human identity of this army in Joel 2.  God promises that he will have mercy on Jerusalem:

2.20 I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land, his vanguage into the eastern sea, and his rear guard into the western sea . . . .

When armies (Assyrian or Babylonian) campaigned in the Levant, they did not set out due west across the desert, but went up through Mesopotamia along the Euphrates to the Aleppo/Ebla/Emar neighborhood before cutting south.  Thus they were thought of as an army from the north.

I thus have the hunch that the invasion of the army and the locusts are not separate events, but a single event – an invasion of a northern army, skilled in siege warfare, depicted in all its terror.  Just as locusts can ruin a nations food supply in no time, so too can a hungry army.  Just as locusts can climb walls and barge into the windows of houses, so too can a siege force.  (See the Lachish reliefs from Ninevah to see a similar final thrust by the Assyrians.)

I’ve got a few things left to work out:
1. Is this northern army Assyria or Babylon?
2. Is the darkening of the sun and moon better tied to military activity or to the dusty, east winds?
3. What is the diachronic relationship between 1.2-2.27 and the remainder of the book?  (There seems to be some late biblical Hebrew in the final chapters of the book that is lacking in the first chapters.  Also reference to Greece seems to put the later chapters later than the earlier.)
4. What is the synchronic function of the final form of the entire book?  (I.e., how did the final editor/author re-employ this invasion material in the Persian period to suit his own concerns?)

Should be a fun read.  More posts coming soon!

_____________________
Andrew